Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom

What is it with you people? You're the same bunch of ignorant folks who campaigned for the deletion of other similar issues - very well known throughout many circles, but apparently not known at all throughout your own circles.

All this comment merely underscores your lack of knowledge about current events. Dr1819 07:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And your comment above highlights again your ignorance of Wikipedia policy and practice. What is needed is not rhetoric but references.  Just zis Guy you know? 08:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, Just zis Guy you know?. Have it your way:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT

Comments: 1 What Wikipedia is not 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
 * : n/a with respect to the article in question. I wrote the article very recently.  The issue has been around for more than a decade, and the concept has been around since the late 50's/early 60's.

1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * n/a with respect to the article in question - it's a movement practiced by hundreds of thousands of men throughout the world.

1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
 * n/a with respect to the article in question (Wiki is definately not a crystal ball - I wish it were, as it would solve these incredulously ignorant deletions)

1.9 Wikipedia is not censored
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

2 What the Wikipedia community is not 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground
 * n/a with respect to the article in question, although some admins such as Zora and Just this guy, etc., have quite emphatically drawn their moral lines in the sand, despite the fact that World reality continues on outside of Wiki reality.

2.2 Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

2.3 Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy
 * n/a with respect to the article in question

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DP

I ran the gamut of every Problem with Page, and the result is simple: Some people believe that this article meets one or more criteria. As given in the source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DP, however, deletion is not the solution. Please follow Wiki guidelines as clearly and unambiguously stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DP.

Regardless, while some people who're ignorant or apparently incapable of conducting any useful research/corroboration continue to push for deletion in violation of Wiki policy as stated in the links above, others who have a great deal more experience in these matters continue to support their inclusion.

Thought for the day: If Wiki is not an experiement in democracy, why does Wiki open the floor to anyone regarding article deletions, subjecting itself to the biases and prejudices of the masses at large, rather than simply taking the steps to verify the article's authenticity and make an informed, unbiased opinion?

By the way, Ezeu, I appreciate your objectivity and your taking the time to conduct additional research which showed that another article was indeed valid. Please let me know if you're having a difficult time finding the 1 Million + links I keep posting herein regarding Men's Fashion Freedom (some idiot keeps deleting my references). Dr1819 10:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

9/6/06

 * Response LOL, not vexatious on the topic, Lar, just the gross misapplication of Wiki rules. When people follow the rules, I'm fine.  When people don't follow the rules, slinging around terms like "neologism" and concepts such as "notability" before taking the time to become familiar with the issue - that's the only time I'm vexed.  I'm a member of a board where the administrators (of which I'm one), are sticklers for clear, concise, logical, and objective arguement.  Posts that violate the rules, using unsupportable arguements such as ad hominem, and appeals to emotion, etc., are summarily deleted.  It makes for a very slick board.  Wiki would improve greatly if those doing the editing and recommendations were held to the same high standards.  You may not like me or my approach, but I intend to continue pushing for more objective and well-informed discussion about this and other issues.  Thanks! Dr1819 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks JzG for refactoring to talk. Normally I'm not a fan of that but in this case. whoa, it looks a lot cleaner now.  + + Lar:


 * Excuse me, JzG, but this is the page considering the article for deletion, not the talk page. Mine and other's comments are relevant to whether or not this article should be deleted.  Your removing them is a pathetically underhanded attempt to undermine my comments.  However:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr1819#AfD_Nomination_Men.27s_fashion_freedom

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr1819

By the way, JzG, your arguements for deletion read like the freshmen's first attempts in Philosophy 101. You make so many errors in logical discourse, I can't help but question your credentials as an admin. Ostensibly it's because you're well-liked and were peer-nominated. Regardless, your arguements themselves, as I stated rather abundantly on my user page, remain grossly in error, are without substance, often wrong, largely fallacious... I am not attacking you in the least, JzG, so please don't jump their, either. But you (alone among all the Wiki admins, I might add - suspcious), are attempting to delete yet another of my articles about a similar topic you've already claimed once that you find distasteful. This personal vendetta of yours must stop, as it violates numerous Wiki rules and procedures, and your underhandedness to remove my counters to your arguements and the posts of others is totally unacceptable. Dr1819 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lar, as has been abundantly proven through the many links I provided (which JzG just removed), it meets no definition of neologism whatsoever, as it's a concept that's been around for more than a decade and a term used by hundreds of thousands. Please, you and others STOP throwing words around without backing them up with citations, evidences, logical discourse, and other justifications to back up your claims.

Until then, your claims are absolutely groundless. Dr1819 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round: the article makes claims, those claims must be proved so the article can stay. Thus far you have devoted enormous amounts of energy to argufying, but have not actually fixed the problems in the article. I suggest you do so. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't encourage him/her to edit the article; his/her editing of the article turned out to be notably non-productive in the past... Churchh 00:57, 10 June 2006