Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triadenum fraseri

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 keep. I am invoking my personal discretion here and closing this ahead of schedule. This discussion has devolved into ad hominem and other inappropriate behavior that is not at all related to the article in question. This is not the correct venue for that. — Earwig ^talk 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triadenum fraseri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:G5. Page creator is now blocked sock of indef banned user USER:ColonelHenry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The G5 has already been declined and no additional rationale has been provided. As a species of plant it is inherently notable. --Michig (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete was declined, Michig, but the article is still eligible for deletion based on WP:G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me what good would come to the encyclopaedia if we were to delete this article. As an exercise, do not cite any essay, rule or edict. Alakzi (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G5 exists to keep those who sock from being encouraged to sock again -- it's along the same lines of WP:DENY. If the article created by the sock is allowed to stand, the sock gets recognition and a "permission" to do the same again, under another sock account. It's a psychological and behavioral move, actually. When a sock creates articles, adds content, uploads files and sees their username attached, there is a feeling of satisfaction that legitimizes and encourages further socking behavior. For many in Wikipedia, there is an emotional feeling of "ownership" when they have started an article, developed it, and added content. When they see their username attached to such edits, it gives them a sense of satisfaction and legitimizes socking. If their edits and/or created articles and uploaded files are removed, there is no recognition, no visual encouragement to continue in the unwanted behavior (socking). The essay on WP:Deny recognition explains this quite nicely.

One more note, Alakzi: The socking and disruption by this individual is not just a one-sock deal. What's been going on with this individual has been happening for (from what I can gather) at least a decade. See this for a more in-depth look at it all. This is an extreme case of long term abuse and should be dealt with accordingly. In fact, I encourage all editors chiding me for bringing this AfD look at the extensive history of this user as outlined in the AN/I link above (that would include Michig, Liz, and even DD2K. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not necessary to undo all of their work - both good and bad - because an incredible essay that cites no credible sources says so. If and when you've been published, I might consider your theory of the mind of 'socks'. Until such time, allow me to be sceptical that this practice (a) acts as a deterrent and (b) outweighs the damage that would befall the project by deleting a sourced article on a notable topic. Alakzi (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be no good reason for this nomination except animosity between editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animosity has absolutely nothing to do with it, and I highly resent your implication that I am doing this simply to piss off the now-banned editor, Liz. It's comments like that which make me remember why I stated what I did at your RfA (even though, in the end, I did !vote "Support"). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious to anyone with common sense that you are reverting all of that editors comments, edits, files and articles based on pure animosity. I suggest you revert yourself or you will find yourself at ANI for disrupting the project with your Pointy behavior. This is just pure disruption and hurting the project. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so certain that my actions are blockable, solely out of animosity, and are meant to hurt "the project", please feel free to take your concerns to AN/I and see how it works out, DD2K. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material is encyclopedic and backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. The persistent efforts to take revenge by deleting the content created by a blocked user are disruptive in and of themselves and only serve to make Wikipedia worse. Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prove your claims of revenge or keep such personal attacks to yourself, Alansohn. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of your disruptive edits uses the same edit summary, pointing to your efforts to undo and remove encyclopedic content using WP:DENY as an excuse. That's exactly what you say you're doing. Every single edit you've reverted and undone has proven to be a removal of productive content. Let me remind you that WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy that serves as a valid justification for anything. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that WP:NPA is not "a mere essay", that you already have a history of being brought to task for personal attacks and incivility against other editors, and that your dislike for my actions in regard to denying a banned sockmaster and long-term abuser is no valid justification for your continued personal attacks against me. Like I said, please prove your accusations or lock it up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that nothing here is a personal attack; It's a commentary on your persistent pattern of pointless disruption, whatever your excuse. Stop destroying Wikipedia and I'll stop pointing out that you're being disruptive. I've proven my claim based on your edit summaries and you're abusive use of WP:DENY to justify your deletion of sourced content. Deal with the problems that you've caused and stop playing the blame game. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"nothing here is a personal attack" Bullshit. It's just a continuation of the personal attacks and false accusations you have been launching against me practically everywhere you've been in Wikipedia for the last several hours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bullshit" is a personal attack. Look above and you'll see that you have no company agreeing with you that this article isn't encyclopedic; Every one agrees that your motives here appear questionable and that the result is disruptive. Calm down, cool off, and try to contribute to Wikipedia. This ain't working. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "bullshit" is a personal attack? Not hardly. Nice try, though. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 1 November 2015 (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.