Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haverly's Ragged Tambo Men

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haverly's Ragged Tambo Men was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 delete

Haverly's Ragged Tambo Men[edit]

Originally listed as a speedy. I cannot verify the authenticity of this page, but I have posted a request for verification on Scipiocoon user's talk page to give him the benefit of the doubt. -- [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 22:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • This looks like the kind of article that might not be referenced much on the net, but I'd like to note it fails the Google test miserably, only one link listed, that leads straight to Wikipedia. Abstain for the moment. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 22:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • As the one who listed it for speedy delete, I obviously vote delete now. My rationale was that from his contributions it looked like he was trying to disrupt Wikipedia with racist articles. One article of his has already been speedily deleted for the same reason. It was Jaking Nigs or something close to that with the "darkies" jaking, as referenced in the famous book (something like) "Ima-Nig" by Yoker and something. It was then followed by the image Image:Black_and_white_minstrel_show.jpg (not sure how to link to it, as putting the normal link tag here makes the huge pic show up inline). Also note that the image on the article currently in question had a previous version uploaded, where the writing at the bottom seems to mention some name other that Haverly's Ragged Tambo Men as being the group, though I could be wrong. Submitter's only other article is Gwine, which is also up for deletion votes. That's the background. On this particle article since it's now up for vote, even ifit turns out it wasn;t motivated by disruption, I think non-notability wins on this one hands-down, as I can't imagine listing every minstrel troupe that ever did darkface gags. Only Edmund Hillary's supposed involvement makes it notable, and then I don't think we need to list all the, say, cub scout packs any famous person was ever involved in. Sorry to be long-winded, but there it is as I saw it. DreamGuy 23:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I Abstain for now - I think if Hillarry was really involved it is worth noting but as others said google test fails, so the supposed Hillary involment might be false - will wait for proove DeirYassin 02:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Vandalism. Proper speedy delete. The image is, I believe, something I have seen before and is, I think, American. The contributor has a history of racist edits, has a racist user name, and it is up to the article to verify, not up to us to disprove. The Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on this. In fact, articles are supposed to cite sources. We're a long way from those days, I grant, but it's still the guideline. Geogre 04:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's very likely vandalism, but I also abstain for the next 24-hours in hopes that the user can come up with come up with something to redeem this article; if he cannot, I will change this to a strong delete. If this user can redeem the article, it would be to his (and our) benefit. I cannot agree that this is a proper speedy, though, because it's not obvious vandalism. Besides, we should "vote on the article, not the person". -- [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 05:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Given that this seems to be racist vandalism, is there really a requirement that we keep the voting open for five days rather than delete it now? And in the circumstances, do we have any reason to believe the picture really is public domain? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • As with other cases, I will wait 24 hours and see if there is any dissent. Other people may act sooner. After the 24 hours, if no one speaks for it, I'll speedy it. If that was wrong, if User:Scipiocoon offers proof, then we can pursue it at Votes for Undeletion. Geogre 15:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The author has been doing other editing and has had time to respond, and like Geogre said, if User:Scipiocoon offers proof, we can send this to Votes for Undeletion. I'm speedying this one as vandalism. -- [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 22:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haverly%27s_Ragged_Tambo_Men&oldid=357524131"