Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cydebot (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 2 August 2006 (Robot - Substituting deletion process templates (see WP:SUBST)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 04:45, 2 August 2006 by Cydebot (talk | contribs) (Robot - Substituting deletion process templates (see WP:SUBST))
- 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 Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be almost entirely OR. Violates WP:OR. The links provided do not meet WP:V Listerin 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep I don't like deleting things because I've never heard of them. I see nothing in the article that might suggest it is a hoax, either. Also, you know the saying "Goading someone on"? (As if to prod or poke someone) Also check this out [1] AdamBiswanger1 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have restored the earlier contents as they existed before the "original research", if any. Anyone interested to have a scanned copy of the page from the book I have referred in this stub, are most welcome to send me a wiki-mail. I shall send they by way of e-mail attachemnt, a scanned copy of the relevant page from the book. --Bhadani 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but Bhadani's edits belong at Ankus, not at Goad. Goads have a long history in agricultural societies; I have no doubt a good, non-OR article on the history of their use can be written. User:Angr 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree. Your revert was fine. --Bhadani 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Why the f*ck does anyone want to delete this? It does not make sense.Barbara Shack 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to be civil and don't bite the nominator of this article. AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone put Hindu stuff in here, that should have been put in Ankus. It has now been put in Ankus. Keep. OR = Original Research, but there is nothing to research about the common ox-goad which farmers have been using for thousands of years. Anthony Appleyard 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It does need an {{unreferenced}} template though. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The section Biblical has Biblical references, and anyone with a Bible can check them. Apart from that, we don't need written references to say what the common oxgoad is, any more than we need written references to prove what a shovel or a pickaxe or a carter's whip are. Anthony Appleyard 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an interesting little article. Aye-Aye 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the interest of good faith I have left a welcome message for the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the interest of good faith, per above. All articles that are written in good faith should be kept per Wikipedia policy WP:AGF. Capit 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per above. If WP:OSTRICH were a policy, this nomination would fail it. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.