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 at new title. Joyous 20:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
What I object to, is the title of the article - it is more or less the British Library catalogue reference, not a description of the book.
Also, I can't actually find it in the British Library's online catalogue (but it is not too easy to use). Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep on condition that it is categorised, as at the moment it's just floating in the ether. There is no point in making up a name if it doesn't have a title or a familiar name. Philip 17:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this article, so I won't vote. (Although I would obviously vote Keep). This manuscript does not have a commonly accepted name, like the Book of Kells. I came up with this name by analogy with the naming conventions for organisms, with the catalog number acting in place of the binomial name. If a common name does not exist for an organism it ends up with an article under the binomial name. (See, for example Escherichia coli.) If some one has a better idea for a name I am open to it, however I think that this manuscript is important enough to warrant an article. You can find this manuscripts entry in the LDAB here. Dsmdgold 17:34, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Article contributors are definitely entitled to vote. Not that it matters much as the decision is based on rough consensus and not a vote count. Dpbsmith(talk) 20:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dsmdgold, the link you gave doesn't seem to link to anything. The article also says 511 rather than 5111 - but, like Jeff, I can't find either number in the British Library's online catalogue. Adam Bishop 21:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, his link has an obvious typo in it. I should have said something. It has an extraneous pipe character. He thought external links worked like internal links. It should have been this, Dpbsmith(talk) 22:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. And 5111 is correct. 511 was the result of a clumsy cut and paste. Dsmdgold
Jeff Knaggs|Talk, If the only problem is the title, then it shouldn't have nominated for VfD. Anyone can Move an article, and anyone can create a redirect to an article. If you know a better title for the article, you could create a redirect from that title... or if you feel strongly that your better title is the best title, you could move it.
You should have brought the matter up on the article's Talk page and discussed possibilities there... and/or with Dsmdgold if it's only the two of you who are interested... or you could enter a Request for Comment and try to get others involved.
And it's not a very urgent matter. It's only important to get the name right if a lot of articles are linking to it.
It's all a question of how people are likelyt to look for the article. In this case, it's not very likely that anybody is going to be looking for it by its name, as it doesn't really have one. Most likely they'll find it by linking from List of Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance illuminated manuscripts or just possibly by text search. So the name isn't all that important.
What Dsmdgold has done is to invent a reasonable naming convention for referring to manuscripts that don't have names that guarantees no duplications and makes it easy to figure out the proper name for a new manuscript in the same category. Personally I see no problem with it.
Keep. Not a VfD matter, if only issue is the title. Nobody has yet suggested a problem with the article itself. Sysop intervention is not required to create redirects and move articles. Jeff Knaggs|Talk, Dsmdgold should attempt to involve anyone else interested in defining naming conventions for medieval manuscripts, hash this out themselves, and take any appropriate actions themselves. Personally I think an appropriate action would be "do nothing, fine as it is."Dpbsmith(talk) 20:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It does need a better title, the only purpose for this VfD process I imagine. Unless this is a joke to keep Wikipedians running around in circles. --Wetman 21:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why? It would be helpful to give a reason. I could guess at one, but I don't want to guess. Note that nominator only objected to the article's title, (but expressed a mild concern about verifying the manuscript's existence). Dpbsmith(talk) 02:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. But what a miserable title. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. OK, the original article's author has been able to find it in the BL online catalogue (well done!), so I am now happy that it exists. But I still think it needs a snappier title. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 08:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not to get too snarky, but I supplied a reference: Kitzinger Early Medieval Art. I would think that a trip to the library would not have been too much to ask before you raise questions about veracity. Not all informaton is on-line. Dsmdgold 14:32, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Dsmdgold, I don't know whether you follow VfD or Special:newpages, but in Jeff Knaggs defense, Wikipedia really does get a significant number of junk entries, pranks, vandalism, bad jokes, obvious hoaxes, and, worst of all, subtle hoaxes. Furthermore, as Wikipedia gains fame, we've had journalists inserting bad information in order to see how quickly it gets detected.
What this means is that most VfD nominations are and must be made by people who are not experts in the subject matter. You glance at an article, and if it sort of smells fishy, the right thing to do is to nominate it and have a discussion about it. A VfD nomination is supposed to mean nothing much more than "Hey, what about this one?"
Now, as for questioning sources, to tell the truth, we honor Wikipedia:Cite your sources more in the breach than in the observance, which is a Bad Thing. Most stuff goes into Wikipedia on the basis of the assumed good faith of the contributor and doesn't get challenged. Ideally if it's wrong, someone just fixes it. Jeff Knaggs did try to verify the existence of the MS quickly, online. His failure to find verification was worth mentioning. But really, once the question has been raised, the burden to Wikipedia:Cite your sources falls on the contributor.
I don't think this should have been nominated for VfD. It should have been worked out on the article's Talk page and/or user Talk pages. But I don't think the nomination was such a terrible thing, nor was a little carefully phrased skepticism given the problems with the links, etc.
Unfortunately, VfD has a tendency to bring the latent snarkiness in even the best of us and I am glad that we've all managed to stay clear of it so far. Dpbsmith(talk) 16:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - the new title is ideal, and the article is now both informative and verifiable. Warofdreams 11:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.