Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Terri Schiavo-related articles


 * 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. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Terri Schiavo-related articles
This collection of internal links is meaningful only as a self-reference; it is not a viable topic for a mainspace list. (Also, the implied threshold of relatedness for including a link on the list is too low for the article to have a notable subject, and too undefined for it to be maintained by other editors.) As I said on the article's talk page, the self-reference problem might be solved by rewriting and retitling it to a "List of topics related to Terri Schiavo", but even that would be a non-notable list. The bottom line is that any topics significantly related to Terri Schiavo should be linked to as normal in the Terri Schiavo article (in the "See also" section if need be), so they don't need a separate list of their own. Delete, but if anyone would like to copy the list to their user namespace (or maybe even Talk:Terri Schiavo) as a navigational aid, that's fine by me. –Sommers (Talk) 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there's nothing here that couldn't be in the "See also" section or done without. Savidan 15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can tell this article is worthwhile without even looking at it. :) -- User:Bill Frist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen (talk • contribs)
 * Delete listcruft.--Isotope23 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is why we have "See also" and Special:Whatlinkshere. -- Krash (Talk) 19:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment we also have a Category:Terri Schiavo. AndyJones 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is what Categories are used for. Jkelly 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely redundant. If any of these articles aren't directly wikilinked from the Terri Schiavo article then they aren't worth recording elsewhere. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * we don't need both this and a category. One of them should go. If the creator of this is serious about linking all these articles together, then templatification might be a viable answer. Grutness...wha?  00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Or a portal. Fg2 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Have no opinion about this particular list, but lists and categories are both valid as they serve different purposes.Jcuk 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But if they serve the same purpose, then what's the point of having both? --Calton | Talk 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Part of User:Pinktulip/User:TulsaGal/User:Amorrow/whatever they're calling themselves today's campign to link anything even tangentially related to Terri Schiavo to Terri Schiavo. See also this CfD edit. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP KEEP OMG! KEEP. It is just a most excellent view into our human condition. -- 68.164.245.60 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course this is not an "article". It is a "list".  That is what the title says.  We have tons of lists pertaining to vastly more trivial subjects that this list.
 * Please note Marskell's emotional and long-term involvement with the Terri Schiavo page, his tendency to "own" the Terri Schaivo page, to pre-emptively warn people that they will be reverted (because he is so accustomemed to just doing the reverting) and his tendency to silently revert any changes he does not like. Any attempt by anyone with less authority than the now-inactive Musical Linguist to build up this information in the "See Also" section will simply be reverted by him without notice, with MAYBE a trivial justication afterwards and no futher negotiation on the matter. And also: absolutely no penalty on him for forcing his will upon the article, and no penalty on him for not constraining himself to a fair process (e.g. involving prior notification,  genuine negotiation and compromise).
 * Marskell has already methodicaly hunted down and destroyed two separate attempts to organize this information within Categories. His first attempt to destroy the information was with a declaration that he would remove "most" of the newly-added articles from the normal TS category.  Now that Pinktulip has been blocked, note how subtle Marskell, with his "ownership attitude" about the article, and how he can now implictily take credit for the results.
 * Note also how Marskell, on the TS talk page, had derisive and intimidating comments about the "Good Artcle" process when Pinktulip got a "good article", On the talk page he says "As for the good article tags, I think they're a joke and should be scrapped."  But then he got admin after admin to hound Pinktulip, and Pinktulip resists and gets blocked, then Marskell turns around, puts on an innocent face and involves himself with Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles and act like a team player!  Very clever of that aquistitive scavenger and character assassinator (and ongoing "article owner" with those sneaky methods of his).  Marskell had imposed his will on the article for many months and made little progress (and participated in the FAILED attempt to get Feature Article).  Pinktulip comes along, starts making progress and Marskell declares him to be a hijacker an keeps whipping up the hysteria. Once Pinktulip, who did NOT fight a revert war against this reverter in the article itself, but stayed on the talk page instead.  Pinktulip got whacked due this guy's hysteria-inciting actions.
 * Look at uneven the tug-of-war contest is: Pinktulip spends hours building up the house of cards so that you all an easily see where the garbage in the politicians is and Timothy Marskell comes along with his fine Linguistic credentials and gives himself permission to go right ahead and knock half the card house over if it does not please him perfectly. Again, Pinktulip could have tried to restore his work, but he, Andrew Wiliiam Morrow, is twice Timonthy's age and much more patient about these sorts of things.
 * Timothy has done ZERO research. Others like Andrew do the research.  Timothy then uses every tactic available to exercise control over the result.  We are not talking about copyedit contributions.  We are talk about content.  Musical Linguist was overt in her pro-life view. Timothy's skewed views seems to coincide with hers.  They have had MANY MANY months to OWN this article.  They should let other take their turn fairly.  I am fourth child from a large Catholic family.  I learn very well to how wait for my turn.  Timothy does not display that same attitude.  Timothy's kind of attitude is what lead to many, many of the messy conflicts on this article.  He should excuse himself.  He has more than had his turn at it.  He is emotionally involved with it.  His attitue: if he can find a comma out of place or dangling particile (and I do like the content) revert the whole thing! Very easy.  Science fiction writers, I find, also tend to have this bad habit because often what they do in their writtings offer is a great deal of surface, but not much content.  -- 68.122.117.175 12:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, Andrew (or Pinktulip or TulsaGal or whatever you're calling yourself today), have you considered taking up a hobby? Knitting? Basket-weaving? Something actuallu productive, maybe? --Calton | Talk 12:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You see how this is, you stupid, young dumb fucks? I tried to make a Catagory and it is getting deleted.  I try to make a list a it is getting deleting.  You dumb deleters say to put the information in the "other".  You just want to destroy the information because you do not like it and the rationales that you use, because of your multiple and inconsistent viewpoints on style results in a situation where there is not where for the information to go where it will survive. -- 68.121.101.234 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, ==See also== isn't article. Pavel Vozenilek 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. Please use existing categories. Kuru 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possibly a category, definitely not a list. Agree with Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. As others before me have pointed out, there's already a category for Terri Schiavo, and a category corresponding to this list was formerly attempted at Category:Terri Schiavo minor players. This latter category or list of tangentially-related articles, as Amorrow/Pinktulip/TulsaGal/68.122.117.175 would like it to be, would be unencylopedic, unnecessary, unmaintainable, and impractical. Imagine if, at the bottom of the death article, there were a category corresponding to, in addition to Terri Schiavo, every famous person whose life was affected by death in some way. (Not to mention that there would be no established way to draw the line on just how tangential or remote these relationships could be.) So, respectfully responding to Kuru, Stifle, and others: the best thing to do is delete this list, leave the categories essentially as they are, and hope that Amorrow/Pinktulip will decide to be a little less contentious. –Sommers (Talk) 04:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not needed.   Proto    ||    type    16:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reading the angry comments above, I appreciate some users are deeply touched by the Terri Schiavo case, and I sympathise with that. However, from Wikipedia's viewpoint, I have to say that we simply do not organse information in this way, and it would be wrong to start. This information really doesn't need a list, or a category, or a template, or a portal. Some of the pages mentioned in this list are, or should be, linked from Terri Schiavo. Any more than that really is not useful. AndyJones 10:38, 15 February 2006 (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.