Talk:Julius Langbehn
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Speedy deletion recommendation
[edit]It will only take a few seconds to establish Langbehn's notability. This article was recommended lazily and ignorantly. Please do some research next time.
- Langbehn has an article as de.wikipedia.org. All I did was replace de with en and type a bit.
- Langbehn has been the subject of books. You would have known this if you had clicked 'What links here'. Oh, but its so much easier just to stick a delete tag on everything that sounds non-American.
Deletionist Administrators: READ YOUR OWN FLAGSYeago 03:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- And this article was created lazily. Kindly do a bit of work to write a better one and not such a paltry effort. If it only takes a few seconds, then it should be no problem. And don't use bold and capitals in talk: it's aggressive. See WP:TPG. Tyrenius 06:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's what we have the stub tag for. Whether it was "created lazily" or not is a non-issue. You as an Administrator should know this (or maybe you're not, in which case your ignorance is excused). What only takes a few seconds is to type the name into google or look at the What Links Here page. Besides, how do you know I'm done working on it?Yeago 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then work on it in a sandbox until you're done. "It's a stub!" is not an excuse to just slap some lists of information together and call it an article. There is no context at all provided for this subject nor any explanation of the subject's importance. --ElKevbo 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uhm. Welp I suppose you're just going to have to get used to the fact that I don't value your opinion on this particular point. Stub or not, it would have taken 3 seconds to verify Langbehn's notable place in History. Plenty of people make stubs with equal or less info. Moreover, what is your evidence that I am done working on this article?Yeago 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it. This is the first line of defense that deletionists who have lost their nimbleness use to excuse the themselves after making a bone-headed suggestion to speedy delete. "By golly it was the article creator's fault... according to what WP tenant? None. But still... its their fault! They're lazy not me!!" Whatever the case, the situation is resolved. Keep a better eye on your delete trigger next time and that includes actually checking not just deleting unfamiliar things.Yeago 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Calm the hell down and stop being a jerk. The process worked. You created a stub with no assertion of notability. Another editor tagged the article as a candidate for speedy deletion. Another editor contested that assertion by removing the template. Aside from the fact that you still haven't bothered to write anything in the article providing context for and about the subject, I don't see the problem here. --ElKevbo 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's only a problem according to your apologist stance for poor deletion choices. This is a volunteer effort and I don't owe you anything, so for you to say my contributions are a "problem" is really against everything Wikipedia is about. I created a stub with plenty of assertion of notability that would have taken 3 seconds to verify, and its my right to do so. Its my right to make an article that says "Julius Langbehn is a historical figure" if I want! Moreover, you were never solicited for your idle opinion concerning how much content is appropriate to start an article with. You're not basing it on any Wikipedia tenant, you're just basing it on the fuzz on your own navel and I'm not buying it, so kindly stop selling it.Yeago 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Calm the hell down and stop being a jerk. The process worked. You created a stub with no assertion of notability. Another editor tagged the article as a candidate for speedy deletion. Another editor contested that assertion by removing the template. Aside from the fact that you still haven't bothered to write anything in the article providing context for and about the subject, I don't see the problem here. --ElKevbo 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it. This is the first line of defense that deletionists who have lost their nimbleness use to excuse the themselves after making a bone-headed suggestion to speedy delete. "By golly it was the article creator's fault... according to what WP tenant? None. But still... its their fault! They're lazy not me!!" Whatever the case, the situation is resolved. Keep a better eye on your delete trigger next time and that includes actually checking not just deleting unfamiliar things.Yeago 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uhm. Welp I suppose you're just going to have to get used to the fact that I don't value your opinion on this particular point. Stub or not, it would have taken 3 seconds to verify Langbehn's notable place in History. Plenty of people make stubs with equal or less info. Moreover, what is your evidence that I am done working on this article?Yeago 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then work on it in a sandbox until you're done. "It's a stub!" is not an excuse to just slap some lists of information together and call it an article. There is no context at all provided for this subject nor any explanation of the subject's importance. --ElKevbo 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's what we have the stub tag for. Whether it was "created lazily" or not is a non-issue. You as an Administrator should know this (or maybe you're not, in which case your ignorance is excused). What only takes a few seconds is to type the name into google or look at the What Links Here page. Besides, how do you know I'm done working on it?Yeago 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)