Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask?  00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football

 * Delete. No factual basis.

Initially the page was written in the first person and contained numerous debatable points, the page has since been taken over by user:TheMadTim who wants to turn the page into his platform on the issue. The page now lacks any balance and I suggest that it should be merged into Rangers, Celtic or even sectarianism. Alibabs 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This discussion was in the AfD log for April 30. I have moved it to its own article. Fan1967 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : The article has been accused of being original research. In fact, the article contains 4 sentences, and 13 (thirteen) verifiable sources, for those four sentences. I'd be most interested in seeing someone quote exactly which portion of the wikipedia policy WP:OR they mean. --TheMadTim 17:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator.Alibabs 01:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a contributer. Firstly, I have no problem in removing the first section of the article. It's unencyclopeadic, and, frankly, rather poorly written. My own contributions, which interestingly, themselves have not been questioned, are short, all sourced, and all are pertinent to the subject matter of the article. Alibabs has alleged that my edits are partisan and sectarian. When asked to provide some sort of evidence to back up these statements, none has been given, other than that my edits make the article allegedly unbalanced. I did invite Alibabs to make amendments to the article to rectify what they perceived to be unbalanced editing, but they have chosen to list it here instead. The fact that the nominee wants to split this article over both the Celtic and Rangers articles would maybe indicate that it is not as unbalanced as originally stated. No explanation as to how my edits allegedly make the article unbalanced have been given, therefore I vote to keep. Hell, it doesn't even qualify for deletion using the criteria set out in WP:DEL --TheMadTim 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research. - Richardcavell 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, you obviously don't include the 13 sourced statements I have added as being original reserach do you? --TheMadTim 02:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're not related to Metamagician3000 are you?--TheMadTim 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - original research. Putting together bits and pieces like this is still original research. Metamagician3000 02:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, which parts? I've provided a source for each and every single statement in the section of the article I editied! --TheMadTim 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're not related to Richardcavell are you?--TheMadTim 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - original research. Putting together bits and pieces like this is still original research. Big Jock Knew 02:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Chaps, I've checked out WP:OR (I don't know if you have) but it says, and I quote,

"What is original research?

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."

Now the sources from the article nominated include the BBC, The Scotsman and The Sunday Herald. Are you saying that they are not reputable sources? --TheMadTim 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I assume TheMadTim's section starts with the sentence, "Examples of possibly sectarian behavour might include, for example,". This whole section reads as a discussion on what is and is not considered sectarian, and as such is Original Research. The other question I have for this user is in what way is this historical as every article seems to be under 5 years old? It also seems that you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox, as every source seems to be critical of Rangers and there are none which are critical of any other Scottish teams, I am not knowledgable about the subject but the article does not appear to have a NPOV, your incessant pestering of every contribution to this discussion is also quite strange. Big Jock Knew 03:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming that Big Jock Knew will not take me replying to his questions as 'incessant pestering' (I assume that if you are asking questions you must want replies?) then I shall proceed. You have said that your 'other question' (I'm not sure quite what the first one was. Are you asking me which section of the article is mine, or are you enquiring about some content?) is what way is this historical? The first bit of it, which deals with history, is not my contribution, and in this version at least, not something which I am personally inclined to provide sources for. Given that I only found the page 12 hours ago, I'm not quite sure what sort of contribution you expect in that timescale, and given that it's currently 5 AM where I am, I'd actually be inclined to think that I had done rather a good job in improving a rather shabby article. Perhaps you think I should have this article ready for listing on the main page a few hours after first seeing it? It seems to you that I 'seem' to be doing a lot of things. I'll thank you to keep your argument based around the contributions I have made, and not to formulate and foster opinion as to any suspected ulterior motives without very good reason. WP:AGF ? Oh, and which parts of the text read like a discussion? Quotes please. --TheMadTim 04:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (possibly merge) Aside from the disjointed, inconclusive nature of the article, there is very little here that couldn't be included in Sectarianism or Scottish Football (if it's merited within either), and certainly nothing worthy of it's own individual article. Darquis 07:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The article as it stands is worse than useless, and clearly a single user's hobbyhorse currently. But some information about this would be notable. I dont think it should be linked to Scottish Football or sectarianism - too specific. And not to Rangers, Celtic, or Hearts or Hibs for that matter - too general. But I think some information on the historical associations of particular clubs with particular sects/ethnicities is definitely notable. If nothing else, it would have made all the references in Ian Rankin's last but one a bit clearer. So leave it in, and someone will clean it up soon enough. (Also, I seem to remember there was an American Political Science Review article some years ago that dealt with this stuff. So another blow for notability there.)Hornplease 09:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NOR: "I personally believe that the fact of having separate schools for Catholics is one of the biggest factor's...". If an editor wants an article under the same title and under the form described by Hornplease, they can recreate one later. It's not likely to get a substantial rewrite in its current form. --BillC 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless the many citations required can be fulfilled. The opening paragraph (if one can call it that) is also a virtual non-sequiter to the article. I would also suggest that it would be nigh-on impossible to clean-up this article so that it met WP:NPOV Ac@osr 09:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- An encyclopedia might well have a good article with this title. This isn't it.  -- GWO
 * Delete for being original research Tuf-Kat 15:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. --Ter e nce Ong 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. KarateKid7 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify for anyone that needs it: This article is original research because it comes to conclusions that aren't supported by the external links. You've combined a bunch of news reports of sectarian behavior and come to the conclusion that this constitutes a "history of sectarianism in Scottish football", a conclusion unsupported by any of the links, AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, I haven't concluded anything. I've presented a series of sourced and verified examples of sectarian behavour involving Scottish football. I've not once made reference to any conclusion, as far as I can tell. Maybe you know differently? --TheMadTim 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is poor, but it's not OR as it's referenced (please!). It has the potential to be a fascinating article if it's done properly, which hopefully it will, when existing or additional editors get to grips with it. Tyrenius 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. If I wrote an article entitled, say, The Great Pyramid of Giza was built by time-traveling Furbies, I could cite a dozen books telling where the Pyramid is and what it is made of.  I could provide a score of webpages about Furby anatomy, and I could cite something by Stephen Hawking to show that at least a few physicists think time travel may be possible.  It's still original research (crackpot at that), and it's still not an encyclopedia article.  Anville 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: this article, while badly-written, has merit. It certainly does not constitute Original Research: unlike The Great Pyramid of Giza was built by time-travelling Furbies, sectarianism in Scottish football is a well-documented and dangerous phenomenon which has damaged many people in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that editors (I am not qualified, alas) expand this article to make others aware of the problem. --die Baumfabrik 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Alibabs, the original nominator, is a sock puppet of the permabanned Karatekid7. KarateKid7 is also a sockpuppet of permabanned Karatekid7.


 * 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.