Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpellation

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Interpellation

Um, what? Rick K 05:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - RickK seems to be taking a lot of abuse for this VfD. Please note that this was how the article appeared before being nominated for VfD, and it could easily be taken for gibberish. A Man In Black 20:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~My thoughts exactly. Speedy delete as patent nonsense.~~ A Man In Black 06:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The substub is eminently keepable. A Man In Black 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a term coined by Louis Althusser. I have rewritten it into a substub to allow organic growth. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Important comment: This is at least the third time today that a user has nominated an article here on VFD before looking it up on Google or checking "What links here". The load on VFD is already high. If this continues, I am going to make it a personal crusade to constantly nag people here that this mistake was the primary reason why my recent RFA ended with a no consensus vote... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to be an Admin, you need to forgo the personal vendettas. ---Isaac R 06:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isaac R, I'd rather help reform behavior on VFD and stop this rampant deletionism. If I have to sacrifice a chance at being an admin, then so be it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm glad I didn't vote for you. Your nasty attitude and attempts at CREATING factionalism disqualify you from adminship. And it's not the nominator's requirement to have to do research to figure something out. I still think the stub is non-keepable and should be transwikied to Wiktionary. But the original article, which I listed, was incomprehensible and eminently delatable. Rick K 06:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        RickK, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Quite a number of people have become anti-deletionists because of folks like you, who seem intent on purging wikipedia of everything that doesn't seem notable to themselves. Klonimus 07:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If a potential nominator doesn't have time to research the topic, there are alternatives like {{cleanup-context}} and {{cleanup-importance}}. Kappa 08:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        EVERYBODY Enough with the finger pointing and personality bashing. We all do stupid things. The only useful response to other people's mistakes is to correct them in a friendly manner. Let's talk about the articles, not the people who write them. ---Isaac R 20:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never heard this term either -- but it gets half a million hits on Google. ---Isaac R 06:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 524,000 google hits must be notable. RickK, you wouldn't create so much resentment if you would do some background checks before you nominated stuff to VfD. If it's a substub, put a cleanup or expand tag on it. Klonimus 07:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You wouldn't create so much resentment if you weren't such a troll. RickK 23:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - WP:NPA and no I am not a troll. I do appreacite the work you do bringing stuff to VfD. It's a very important and thankless task. Klonimus 06:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of good reasons already stated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: "Interpellation" also has a different meaning, namely the right of parliament to question the government — that's also the meaning I was familiar with. See e.g. the page in the German Wikipedia (de:Interpellation). Also, the link from Croatian Parliament uses this meaning of the word. Martg76 13:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a useful bit of information. It sounds like a made-up word (which is probably why it got VfDed), but obviously isn't. ---Isaac R 20:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this rather hasty nomination. I'm going back there now to remove the speedy delete tag. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand explaining meanings in political science and philosophy. In defence of RickK, most notable subjects that are put forward for VfD are nominated because the article is in very poor state and doesn't explain its significance. Capitalistroadster 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then RickK should flag the article with cleanup or expand. VfD is not emergency cleanup.Klonimus 00:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a fascinating subject that takes some careful reading to understand the social and philisophical relationships implied. I'm not comfortable explaining it yet, but I plan to keep checking to see how this one develops. I'm putting a link to a University of Queensland Australia article on my user:talk page if anyone else is interested.--Unfocused 03:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please and if possible research before deleting Yuckfoo 17:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bite me. Rick K 19:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep now that it makes sense. James F. (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally it was garbage, but now it is a Keeper. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.