Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protocol Amending the Agreements

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 - kept, could be merged somewhere and should certainly be renamed. - SimonP 20:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Protocol Amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs concluded at The Hague on 23 January 1912, at Geneva on 11 February 1925 and 19 February 1925, and 13 July 1931, at Bangkok on 27 November 1931 and at Geneva on 26 June 1936

Ridiculous title, it wouldn't even work when placed inside the vfd template, I had to fiddle with the title. Created by Iasson, who has been banned from editing. Rick K 04:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Simple solution: Don't put it in the VFD template. Leave it alone, instead of trying to undo people's work. 205.217.105.2 13:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, that's impressive. Aerion //talk 04:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Protocol amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs, 1946

[1]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Notable title. Rename to Protocol amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs, 1946 Klonimus 07:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Mr. Munchausen: Being the Protocol Amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs concluded at The Hague on 23 January 1912, at Geneva on 11 February 1925 and 19 February 1925, and 13 July 1931, at Bangkok on 27 November 1931 and at Geneva on 26 June 1936.
- The above from User:128.12.178.70, who is probably the same person as Iasson/the creator. Rick K 05:30, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  Rick, that joke vote was from me. I am not Iasson. Move to Lake Success Protocol and delete redirect. Gazpacho 06:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Prohibition (drugs) —Wahoofive (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RickK, how could you overlook CSD §G5 about contributions made by a banned user after they were banned? Sjakkalle 07:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? (Delete) as per Sjakkalle. And not just *any* banned user, Iasson! We should have a whole clause just for him and JoeM... or move to BJAODN for the "longest page name ever" award. Master Thief Garrett 11:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny page name though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Official names of treaties are frequently lengthy. In this case, it is a rather descriptive name, noting the treaties that it is amending. In any case, the treaty was fairly important in the development of international drug law, since it laid the groundwork for the power structure of the UN drug control regime of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. It is referenced in that article, as a matter of fact. 205.217.105.2 12:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hereby refute allegations that this article was written by Iasson by stating that I am the same user as User:24.54.208.177, User:Rad Racer, User:SonicSynergy. As evidence, Iasson did not create featured articles, while I created three. However, I acknowledge my posts are similar to his, and will expound on the reasons. 205.217.105.2 13:03-16:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [Forgery Alert. I have corrected the false timestamp on the above contrib, which was altered repeatedly over a period of 3+ hours by its author without updating the timestamp. This was egregious for sowing confusion for about what they had read, from the first change until the point where it elicited an explicit response at 14:32. The succeeding changes over almost the next 2 hours were equivalent to forging a contrib by another user, bcz they changed the meaning of another user's contrib by falsifying the apparent context of the other user's contrib. I haven't time to add a subpage detailing the timing and content of these changes right now, but at least there's now a flag on the play thrown. --Jerzy~t 19:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]
- I think it's ironic that the IP address you're using for your "I am not Iasson!" posts is the same one which posted some highly Iasson-esque vandalism to various user pages just a few days ago. Let's face facts: Iasson got a lengthly ban for his disruptive voting policies, and it's highly unlikely that anyone other than a sock would pick up where he left off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, but my posts do not fall under policy that banned users should be reverted, because while I have occasionally received temporary blocks, I have not been banned (unlike Iasson). Therefore, to delete my articles without regard to the usual deletion criteria would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, to borrow a phrase from Francis L. Young. I move that the "delete" votes that were based on the mistaken belief that I am Iasson be disregarded. 205.217.105.2 14:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, then perhaps you'd care to explain the following: If you're really not Iasson and don't want us to think you are Iasson, then why are you going so far out of your way to look and act like Iasson, right down to the disruptive voting and user-page vandalism? Until I hear an answer that makes sense, I'll remain unconvinced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
      - I refer you to my formal statement at WP:AN/I. Everyone who is asking about sockpuppets / Iasson, please see the "formal statement" which is posted on the admin noticeboard. Thank you. 24.54.208.177 09:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the hope that the information can help ID this vandal &/or speed the banning/blocking of that IP, i offer their invitation to me. (I have no memory of whatever made me look like a support to them, and don't have time to research it.) --Jerzy~t 18:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So, I'm a high-ranking officer in the deletionist army now? How flattering! Gazpacho 03:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, and I would be in favor of removing the redir if possible, as the title is ludicrous. Radiant_* 15:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- If your name were Ashklhsadflgiwtoufsldhalsdlhdsfahslkslsdaflsfdlhdsldsfaldfsldsfalhfdsalhslfksldflsdfalksfadsfdldslksldfklsalkhasfdlkhsdlksfdlhk, would it be inappropriate for the article about you to be titled Ashklhsadflgiwtoufsldhalsdlhdsfahslkslsdaflsfdlhdsldsfaldfsldsfalhfdsalhslfksldflsdfalksfadsfdldslksldfklsalkhasfdlkhsdlksfdlhk? The current name of the article is the most common version of the treaty title found on Google. Come on, fhqwhgads. 205.217.105.2 15:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. The very example you cited proves that there's not a shred of rationality to this article's title. fhqwhgads is the title of the article about the Strong Bad e-mail, even though it's not the full title. Indeed, fhqwhgadshgnsdhjsdbkhsdabkfabkveybvf is a redirect to the most common title. NatusRoma 16:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right then - if the title is the only problem, then why delete the article instead of moving it? 205.217.105.2 17:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that I didn't vote to delete. Yes, the name is the main problem. I disapprove of any name longer than 42 characters in general. R adiant _* 07:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Are you all just a bunch of idiots? Listen now while you still may be unscathed and placid- the time of reckoning has come. Though dreary coughs have mucked up the improper claims, I offer this solitary punch, as shelled and vacant as it may be, with bitter regards to everyone. For within troubled times come troubled admonitions. This wretched tablet that stands before me is like a shattered clock that had once shown minutes on the wall. Now between your mindless clattering it's come to pass that incineration is the best means of reproof. It's all in the sauce, you sycophants- enjoy knowing how the wind shall carry your ashes to the farthest corners of the earth- and with that, los -
- (above post by User:159.169.57.3, who may need his/her medication adjusted)—Wahoofive (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- wow, emo --the wub (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a valuable contribution to the wikipedia collection. Long title, huh; since when do you people get uptight about that? Just look at some of the discussion pages- now that is ridiculous.
- (also by User:159.169.57.3)—Wahoofive (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamaliel 16:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale, please? 205.217.105.2 17:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as legitimate article on significant international treaty, but Move to a more workable name, such as the one suggested by ~~Zzyzx~~ Gazpacho. Suggest admins research, and probably block, the 159.169.57.3 IP address as a ranting vandal, whether or not that's the same user as Iasson or allied contributor 205.217.105.2 . Suggest admins research above-cited contribution history and review whether Iasson's hard-ban is being violated. Barno 18:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, delete redir, & ban. --Jerzy~t 18:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, merge, delete, keep, ban, redirect, how do you like that Jerzy-t? [19:26, 9 May 2005 User:Tparker393, per history.]
NOTE WELL: All contributors on this page should be aware of the Forgeries on this page committed by User:205.217.105.2. A bit more information appears just after their "13:03" contrib "I hereby refute ...", above; watch this bullet point for more information.

--Jerzy~t 19:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Perhaps into Russian Page, or USSR, or both. A noteworthy topic; just not as a page in its own right. Jdhowens90 20:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Misplaced vote. Most probably must go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Assumption by Russia of the Soviet Union's seat in the United Nations. Mikkalai 02:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is known as 1946 Lake Success Protocol. Mikkalai 02:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lake Success Protocol and delete redirect, per Gazpacho. -Willmcw 02:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC) [Caveat: I am assuming good faith. I am not familiar with Iasson and am simply taking the material at face value, although I have checked a few references. It's not patent nonsense. -W. 06:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)~]
- It's not written by Iasson. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Formal_statement_of_User:205.217.105.2_.2F_User:24.54.208.177. 205.217.105.2 12:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written and encyclopedic article, utterly hopeless title. Keep but rename to something much shorter. — JIP | Talk 12:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't care who created this, it shouldn't be deleted. Grue 17:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Protocol amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs, 1946--the wub (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to somewhere reasonable, as per Mikkalai, Gazpacho, Klonimus, etc. Redirects are cheap. The current title is obviously unworkable, even if it is the "true" name of the protocol. JRM · Talk 02:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Move as suggested. James F. (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. Whatever it was before, it isn't now. Now it's a perfectly good article with a perfectly awful title. --Unfocused 04:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article - preferably under a name that won't stun an ox; delete every second letter in the title (it might contain a secret code, who knows?); and consign much of the above vfd debate to BJAODN. Grutness...wha? 14:50, 14 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.