Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Emax


 * 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 - kept

User:Emax
See the contributions of User:Emax. He has written tons of substub articles about non-notable Polish nobility families. I got tired of putting the vfd header and creating a VfD page for every single one of them. RickK 19:33, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let them get on with it - they're not doing any harm.  Wikipedia has plenty of space.  Polish nobility seems as legitimate to me as nintendo characters.--Tomheaton 19:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * keep. as Tom said.  delete only if patently nonsensical. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 20:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting his user page is not the answer. --Improv 20:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me make it clear that I'm not trying to get his User page deleted, but each and every one of the substub family articles he's written. RickK 21:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and politely ask the user to stop being the B-Nobility Bandit&mdash;but any substubs he's posted on genuinely notable (whether equivalent articles exist in the Polish Wikipedia might be a good standard) subjects should stay; hopefully he'll be willing to help clean them up.  &mdash;Triskaideka 20:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My vote is with TomHeaton above! &#8212; Bill 23:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all - substubs are not the spawn of satan as some users appear to believe. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 23:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the substubs he has been making are quite pernicious, actually. They are not informative and seem to be hosts for images.  Do we know that each and every one is unencumbered by copyright?  I don't.
 * Maybe the images, but maybe not their blazons. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * [continued] Are the noble houses he's documenting still extant, or are they historical? It seems like a clans database kind of thing.  However, while I support speedy deleting radical substubs (hint), the articles probably have to stay.  They're very ugly, though. Geogre 00:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - We're currently working on a template for Polish szlachta coats of arms (since that's what the pages in question will be about) and it will be ready soon. It will be an English version of the Polish Wikipedia pl:Herb szlachecki series. As such it is far from being ready, but listing the User who started this serious work for deletion seems like an absurd to me. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:49, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell you people that I DID NOT LIST THE USER WHO STARTED THIS FOR DELETION????? RickK 23:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

The Steve 03:08, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Come on, RickK. You should know better than that.  If you're tired of listing them, let someone else do it.
 * 1) Don't list users here.  If you want to delete his contribs, list his contribs
 * 2) If you can't be bothered to list the substubs that should be deleted, then I can't be bothered to check them all, and will assume good faith.
 * 3) Deleting all of one user's contributions all the unspecified contributions RickK doesn't like, good and bad, is both foolish and bad policy.  Find the ones you object to and list them here.
 * Keep Seem to be valid encyclopedia entries. DCEdwards1966 17:33, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I'll list each and every one of them. It will probably take me two hours to do so, and so I won't do it tonight, but I'll spend the long, tedious hours to do so. When did I say to delete every one of the user's contributions? As I've said TWICE now above, I'm talking about all of the non-content substubs which contain nothing but a sentence saying it's a Polish noble family and includes a copy of some coat of arms. I'll do it tomorrow. but I'll list them all here instead of in several individual deletion pages. RickK 06:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper. Therefore, the inforamtion about Coat of Arms and their bearers, which would not find place in paper encyclopedia, may find their place in wikipedia. At least this was one of the slogans which brought me to wikipedia few years ago.
 * Rick, that seems a real waste of your energy! Surely as a community we don't have anything against Polish nobility? Like the French and others, the Poles are very big on their own noble houses, so these articles serve a purpose; plus little by little we'll wind up having a large heraldic database in here, which &#8212; leaving the Polish question and the notability of the houses aside &#8212; will find all those escutcheons and blazons useful. &#8212; Bill 13:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Polish nobility. I DO have something against articles which have no content except saying that it's a family name.  These articles have NO content.  If they were filled in with names of important members of the families, and a history of the name and its importance in Polish history, then fine, they would be worth keeping.  How about if I write an article that has no content except for some picture and a single line that says "The xxx family is a noble xxx family."  Is that worth keeping?  RickK 19:19, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. User has made some good contributions. I personally think that some of the family name articles would make more sense as categories, but that's not really relevant. I also disagree with massive package-votes.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - Note that for example "Polkozic" is not a page about family, but about Coat of Arms and clan, whole family of families. E.g. My family has been signing by "Polkozic" once, despite having no relations to any other mentioned families (and is not listed on the page, BTW :)) ), However, keep and make them more comprehensive. The link to article explaining the details of Polish heraldry and nobility, with explanation how the CoA was created etc would be better. Therefore i understand RickK concerns, however i ask for patience and time for them to develop into something better  Szopen
 * As I said, we're working on a "Polish heraldry" project, with a CoA page template (probably all those pages will be moved from, for instance, Nieczuja to Nieczuja Coat of Arms or something along these lines. The reason they are placed where they currently are is that we are still uncertain whether to treat the CoA separately from their families/clans/groups (herbowni). Just give me some time, gentlemen. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: if participants in this project were to mention it on their user pages, or in the edit summaries for these new substubs they create, it might help to head off any future attempts to delete them. People will probably be less likely to object to substubs if there's some indication that someone will take responsibility for turning them into real articles.   &mdash;Triskaideka 17:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I decided to just list the pages that I had already put the VfD header on until I see a consensus, and if the consensus is to delete, I'll work on more of his articles. Oh, and then if these get kept, I'll be writing an article at Jones that contains no content other than "Jones is a Welsh family name". RickK 19:21, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC):
 * Rick, have you read User:Szopen and User:Halibutt's posts above?--Tomheaton 19:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. How do their comments change the fact that these are substubs with no content?  RickK 00:17, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Topor - Szreniawa - Syrokomla - Rawicz (Szlachta) - Polkozic - Ogonczyk - Odrowaz - Lodzia - Labedz - Swinka


 * They will be changed to full articles in two or three days. Does it explain a bit? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:20, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Look OK to me; given the breadth of the project, some are bound to be stubs for a while. One of the difficult parts is the blazoning: many of these arms are nonstandard according to the rules of French and English heraldry on which the language of English blazon is predicated; odd charges, colors &agrave; enquerre, etc. but just from the heraldry angle alone, this is beginning to look more and more valuable. (Give up, Rick! You'll win other battles, and good ones too.) &#8212; Bill 18:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Further evidence of atrocities instigated by the wiki-nazis.   Just look at this place. Radman1 14:21, 18 Oct 2004 (PST)


 * 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.