Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herping


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Big Dom  18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Herping

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research, no sources, prod removed without any attempt to improve the article, article tagged with multiple problems for two years, this article is no different from the Graving article which was also deleted - it's basically a made up word used only by a limited number of enthusiasts. Rklawton (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, while the current state of the article is no doubt poor, that's reason to IMPROVE it, not delete it. Shocking as it may be, most of us have a lot of real, actual work to do, and cannot drop everything for every article in need of attention.
 * Second, the comparison with "graving" is disingenuous. Googling "graving" yields next to nothing, other than a synonym for drydock (which is a strong case for merging).  In contrast, googling "herping" yeilds a plethora of links to an activity which has no real synonym.
 * Third, just because it's used in a small group of enthusiasts doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Do I seriously need to point out how many pages of obscure Star Trek trivia exist on WP? What's your criterion for how many people a group needs to have before their terms are "notable"?  Because I suspect that criterion is more than met by the billion-dollar-a-year reptile trade.
 * I was under the impression WP was supposed to be a reference, a place people can go to look up terms or get information. How is that served by deleting the very *name* of an activity which hundreds of thousands of folks in the US alone engage in regularly?
 * This entire deletion nomination is based on nothing more than "Well, I've never heard of it and the page isn't perfect, so it can't be important, now can it?". Mokele (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's rude, disingenuous, and entirely improper to claim my AfD nomination is anything other than what I stated above. I don't put my words in your mouth - so don't put your words in mine. Also note that the edit summery you added when removing the prod tag on the article was insulting. Please refrain from personal attacks. Rklawton (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not very rude, not even slightly disingenuous, and perfectly normal to assert the character of a nomination. "Your personal lack of knowledge" is a natural reaction to not being able to comprehend another's point of view; it is akin to things I wrote years ago, when I first started, and I used to wince over real or imagined slights like the rest of the WP:NPA warriors, too. It was not hard to give up either of those things; they are not sound arguments. Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, fine, now how about addressing my actual points? Mokele (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Point: two years is more than sufficient time to improve an article.
 * 2) Point: your second point is contradicted by your third point.
 * 3) Point: your third point is cited as a reason for deleting this article - it's a made up word used by a small group of enthusiasts.
 * 4) Point: your fourth point belies an apparent misunderstanding. Wikipedia is a reference, but it's WP:NOT a reference for all things.  We have requirements for notability, requirements prohibiting the publication of original research, and requirements mandating the use of reliable and verifiable sources.  The article in question fails all four points.  These are Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and they are what allow us to maintain our reputation as a relevant, reliable source.  Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I haven't even been watching it for two years. And I've got about 300 other pages that *nobody* else seems to want to deal with either, all in just as much or more need of my EXTREMELY limited time, plus the time I need to put in to fighting vandals just to prevent further degeneration. Herping is accurate (based on my own, expert knowledge of the topic), and therefore leaps ahead of some of the other stuff that needs my attention.  If you cared, you'd try to fix it, but evidently that's not the case.
 * There is no contradiction between 1 & 2 - both are about how even a cursory google search reveals herping to be far more notable than your supposed equivalent.
 * That the term is "made up" is irrelevant. So is "Skydiving", so let's delete that, eh?  After all, it's just a made-up word for the hobby of an even tinier group (I'll bet $20, here and now, that there are more reptile keepers in the US than skydivers - I'm not exaggerating when I said billion-dollar industry).
 * I've demonstrated this passes notability, and the OR claim is false - unreferenced isn't the same as OR. I'll add the references when I get around to it.
 * Crap like this is why experts like myself so rarely contribute to WP - too many bureaucrats insisting that everything must fit some rule or be perfect from day 1. All I want to do is improve the pages, but instead, I find myself wasting my time with pointless quibbles like this, just to prevent the loss or decay of what information is already there, because of arcane and irrelevant guidelines held up like gospels.
 * The page is being looked after by an expert, and will receive the attention it needs *eventually*. If that's not soon enough, then fix it yourself. Mokele (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mokele's second and third points are not incompatible. The second contradicts the nominator's last phrase in the nomination; the third directly addresses it. It is perfectly acceptable to argue hypothetical points in this way. And nom is dead wrong about reputation. Enough contributors come with the reasonable (and not incompatible with WP rules) rationale that WP should cover subjects of interest (ever looked at the rationale for image files?) only to be obtusely contradicted with the cookie cutter AFD-winning ruleset, and whatever reputation users may claim for WP, the real reputation among contributors is going to be that WP is not a worthwhile investment of their time, and among consumers, that it is lacking content. Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There. An entire freaking book, titled the same as the page, in addition to 230,000 google results, over 13,000 results in google books, and even nearly 200 in google scholar. This effectively kills your point on notability, and can easily serve for references. Mokele (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the book is a copy of the Wikipedia article. There definitely are enough sources, though, looking at, for example, at the genuine entries on Google books. &mdash;innotata 21:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This AfD is now the subject of an ANI discussion due to Mokele's attempt to canvass support for his position in violation of Wikipedia's established AfD process. . Rklawton (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep very clearly a notable subject and the article isn't bad enough to delete it. &mdash;innotata 21:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article need a bit of seeing to, but deleting it would be bad as it covers an important subject. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Mokele has more than demonstrated the availability of sources. Remember, AfD is not a method of dealing with imperfect articles. We delete when an article doesn't meet inclusion standards, not when it isn't developed enough. --Danger (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Danger and Mokele. Possible merge with herpetoculture?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs savage editing. Moriori (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm don't think this is what isn't accepted at AfD. Canvassing says that posting to a WikiProject or other collaboration board (as opposed to, say users with a userbox) is acceptable, and should ideally be done with neutral and polite language. I would think that any deletion nomination that could possibly be important to a WikiProject should be brought to its attention. For my part, I did come here after seeing Mokele's post, but I knew about the subject and was pretty sure that it was notable, which I believe a cursory search for sources shows (I should have stated all of this in my rationale). &mdash;innotata 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sour grapes much? Mokele (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please desist with the insults. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - I see a half dozen new references in the article. In general, that's a good thing.  The problem in these cases is that the references fall into two categories:  they're either not from a reliable source (the Free Dictionary), or they're used in violation of WP:SYNTH - that is, they demonstrate that the word exists (which was never disputed), but they fail to support the content of the article.  The content is still original research. The bottom line is "herping" doesn't belong in this encyclopedia, though the content (if it's ever sourced properly) might fit into Herpetology somewhere. Here's another way to look at it.  Google "herping". Sure, the word exists.  But now take a look at the top links - they're all from self-published sources - forums, community pages, and the like.  This is exactly like the "graving" article noted above - up to and including personal insults and canvasing fans to oppose the AfD.  Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Including one source from a Government Agency published in 1989?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the other sources from magazines, and those on Google Books? The same thing on Google could be said of "birding" and "geocaching" (to a lesser extent, as other links appear below, and most entries are geolocated ones; I wonder if that gives different editors commenting here different results for "herping" depending on whether there's an group in their area), but these are much more notable. Herping also isn't a perfect fit for herpetology, as it concerns methods for observing and catching etc, which are used in the scientific study of reptiles and amphibians but also by amateur naturalists etc. I don't know why you're still talking about "canvassing fans"—Mokele didn't violate canvassing rules, and the WikiProject isn't exactly "fans" of this—, and why you and Mokele are still trying to keep up your dispute. &mdash;innotata 01:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to merge, herpetoculture would be a better fit. Although that article looks like a bag of ass.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the source. Does this government source simply use the word - which poses WP:SYNTH problems, or is the source about the word? For example, if the source article is titled something like "Federal Regulations Regarding Herping on Public Lands", then that would be great.  Or if there's a reliable source that specifically says something like "herping is the search for reptiles or amphibians" then I'll withdraw this nomination immediately (the user-published "free dictionary" is not a reliable source). However, all I've seen are self-published sources and other sources that use this word only as slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. As far as the OED and Merriam-Webster are concerned, this word doesn't exist - a good indication that this word lacks sufficient notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia.  Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the title is "Let's Go Herping!" published by the State of PA, and yes, herping is referred to in the article numerous times as one would say "fishing" or "hunting" in a similar context. There are two university published books (Texas A&M and Oxford) which use the term quite often.  I'm not lying, they are there in the article for all to see.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no dispute with Mokele. I object to his incivility, and I have said so. If he persists, he will find himself blocked from editing - as is the case with all editors persisting in uncivil behavior after repeated warnings.  This is a project that requires collegiality and some degree of professionalism, and editors who can not conform are forced to leave for the good of the project.  Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see...rhetoric that is more accusative than descriptive, or using administrative authority as an escalating threat... Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as the word, there should be no problems with verifying: this should be what you asked for above. The entry in The Free Dictionary comes from the Collins English Dictionary, and the most common word of this group is "herp", which is much easier to verify; the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't contain plenty of English words.
 * What you've been doing seems very much like a continued dispute on your part and Mokele's. &mdash;innotata 02:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Note Perhaps the nominator would be willing to withdraw the nomination and WikiProject AAR would be willing to spend the next few days editing the article to bring it up to a C or B standard??? That way the nominators reason for deletion would no longer exist and we dont lose an important article. Zoo Pro  06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article perhaps has a bit too much "How to" and Synth in it, but it's a notable topic - it's a commonly used verb to describe a common pastime (like "birding" as someone suggested above) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article is starting to look better. It's been trimmed down considerably, and is fairly well sourced.Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Innotata and others. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I like the article; it is useful. Fortuitously, it is also sourced and of note. Just playing around; don't use either of the rationales in my first sentence exclusively as they are not sound. Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.