Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robin Johnson (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 1 May 2006 (→[]: reply to TheMadTim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Religious rivalry in Glasgow

The article is original research WP:OR and does not contain verified material WP:V refers, both are official Misplaced Pages policies TheMadTim 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator --TheMadTim 00:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is not WP:OR, the user is attempting to make a WP:POINT as "his" article History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football has been nominated for deletion. Alibabs 00:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment isn't someone using an article for WP:POINT an argument against Darquis 01:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he means that this very nomination is an instance of WP:POINT, not that this article's creation was an instance thereof. Kimchi.sg 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood, and am voting to keep. Darquis 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so that you know dude, WP:POINT is being used by Alibabs without basis. Alibabs has in fact been conducting a campaign of harassment against myself for a couple of days now. Ask them to explain exactly how ] applies. They can't. --TheMadTim 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete I mean speedy keep - WP:POINT. Metamagician3000 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepLibrarianofages 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:POINT nomination. --KarateKid7 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Johnbull 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Err dudes, you do realise that people who are citing WP:POINT are actually voting both to keep and to delete the article? --TheMadTim 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am voting to keep the article as you nominating the article is an attempt to make a WP:POINT. KarateKid7 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, are you able to cite any evidence of this dude? --TheMadTim 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:POINT nomination. Fan1967 03:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Can't see anything wrong with this article. Phileas 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Alibabs. The article could use some references, but (for me) it is not WP:OR, as there are over 10 different editors that had contributed in the past. -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has room to become a good article. The WP:POINT arguments are confusing though. MyNameIsNotBob 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep though I'd love to see this expanded and more importantly, one or more relevant external references added. Kimchi.sg 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. SorryGuy 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is an important and known aspect of Glasgow. However, it very strongly needs to be referenced. Tyrenius 05:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely not WP:OR Darquis 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep linked to too many pages, and is a very useful basis for research as there are frequent documententaries etc. about (espc. when it comes up to Old Firm Derbys) so its a well know topic. I think renaming though, maybe to enforce the point that it's a catholic vs protestant rivalry. DannyM 11:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Expand --Srikeit 13:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as nomination to make a point. But while I'm here, I'll also suggest a move to Sectarianism in Glasgow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Johnson (talk • contribs)
• Keep. WP:POINT nomination. Some of the things you have asked the editors to cite sources for (eg "Nowadays, overt sectarianism is largely limited to the rivalry between the supporters of Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C., which has an underlying religious basis for some people" (which has 2 "citation needed"s in it)) is just a little extreme. Batmanand | Talk 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Dude, asking the article to conform to WP:V isn't too much is it? --TheMadTim 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm certain it could conform to WP:V, because it is an often-noted thing in Scotland (yes, it's just me saying this.) The lack of sources is a flaw in the article, but taking the article away because of that flaw would, in this case, be a Bad Thing. Robin Johnson 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)