Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian tsunami : The earthquake

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asian tsunami : The earthquake[edit]

User:Kenkam (contributions) unsuccessfully proposed a name change of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake to 2004 Asian Tsunami. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#2004 Indian Ocean earthquake .26rarr.3B 2004 Asian Tsunami or Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake; he received no support at all.

He now seems to be trying to circumvent this by creating a parallel or duplicate article at Asian tsunami : The earthquake.

As further evidence of bad faith, he had earlier used an anonymous IP User:203.120.68.68 (contributions 5 Jan – 7 Jan only) to spam every article in Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with links to http://www.asiantsunami.org/ , which indicates he has some kind of vested interest (perhaps financial?) in pursuing this. -- Curps 03:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because it was only created a few hours ago (copying most of the content of the original article) and because of the bad faith involved in its creation, this is a candidate for deletion and not for merging under Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. -- Curps 03:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He has also twice deleted the VfD notice on the article page, though perhaps this is due to unfamiliarity with Wikipedia rules. -- Curps 04:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - terrible page title and nothing worth merging back. While I can't quite call it an outright bad faith action, Kenkam is showing a lack of respect for the opposition to his actions expressed on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated above. The page title sounds like a bad disaster movie sequel. 23skidoo 04:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Moron. Mark1 04:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:59, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —kjd 05:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It actually sounds more like the prequel. BanyanTree 06:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An internal fork of an article to get around consensus... over a title? Delete. Samaritan 06:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --foobaz·✐ 06:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete K1Bond007 06:37, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Dear Wiki contributors, admins & sysops. You have been mislead by Curps. Please see that article in question and decide for yourselves if deletion is a correct Wiki thing to do. I have decided not to pursue the re-naming of Curps's article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and through consultation with other helpful Wikis, I have decided to start a series of Asian Tsunami articles on my own ... there is freedom to initiate such a move right ? The articles in questions is proposed to drill deep in the subject in question. In Asian tsunami : The earthquake I have attempted to focus just on the earthquake that caused the Asian Tsunamis. In Asian tsunami : Time-line (currently vandalised by Curps), I have drilled down to the exact minutes to minutes account of the waves of deadly tsunamis. I will be added other article in the Asian tsunami series like the humanitarian aspects, current news & occurrences etc. because I think it is the right thing to do. kenkam 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Kenkam, you should not spam the above message to the Talk pages of everyone who has voted here so far. -- Curps 07:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Curps, you definition of spamming is grossly questionable. To 'spam' (by Wiki definition) is to broadcast unsolicited messages. My messages, on the contrary, to every contributors of this vote, is a communique rather than a spam. Your other accusation of me spamming your articles are also not acceptable. When I posted "asiantsuani.org" (a forum site for relief work) to the specific relevant sections (perfectly OK because you have other forums & blogs there too) you deliberately deleted my entries and launched unwarranted accusations at me for spamming ... is that the right thing to do, Curps ?? I have left the deletes as it is because if the originator of the article does not appreciate the particular contributions (though very relevant by me), I will never force it on him. kenkam 07:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia's common-law policy disallows article forks as a method of resolving disputes. Calling Curps a vandal for attempting to follow general Wikipedia consensus on the article name is hardly a way to win support. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • "there is freedom to initiate such a move right ?" - No. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Cyrius. I resent being spammed on this issue, which is more likely to result in a ban. Clearly people other than Curps are making their opinions clear about this article, so it can't be considered simply one user's viewpoint. 23skidoo 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. --fvw* 07:36, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Terrible title. No merge. User's disregard for Wikipedia policy and consensus is troubling. I applaud his energy but would prefer to see it spent improving articles rather than quibbling over names. He cannot proclaim ignorance; he was well aware that not a single user (aside from a possible sock puppet) voted in favor of the proposed name change. Kenkam, you also seem overly attached to the idea of "ownership" of articles. The articles are neither yours nor Curps's; it does not matter who initiated them. If you have information you would like to add about the earthquake, you may add it to the earthquake section of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. If the timeline interests you, feel free to work on it, although the title should be 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake timeline or 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami timeline. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Gah. Delete. - Vague | Rant 08:10, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article, ban user. Neutralitytalk 08:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, but make sure to retain proof so we can get royalties from the inevitable TV movie of the same name. Rhobite 08:45, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever new info into 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and then delete. For heaven's sakes, please try to be actually helpful and respect the general concensus. --Andylkl 08:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Hippalus 09:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete An other user not respecting WP consenus, and innocently riding alone and circumventing... I am free to do what I want, huh huh!. And we end up cleaning... Bad faith or good faith is not the question for the end result is the same. Am just out of a one month dispute on this kind of behviour. Am tired. :-) Gtabary 11:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: unless the article is started from scratch with a substantial amount of content that may be considered superfluous to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake page. –– Constafrequent (talk page) 15:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Deadlock 16:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article, delete user, delete user's home, delete user's family. ADH (t&m) 19:18, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fork, merge any original stuff. But I think Curps could have been a tad less vitriolic --Cynical 20:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- note sure where I am supposed to place this. Spinning off subarticles is fine, but this is not an appropriate title nor topic. Tuf-Kat 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. This is getting ridiculous. Kenkam, suggest you focus your energy on improving the existing articles rather than fighting about the names. - Jpo 04:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge if possible, then redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE!!! I have heard of grammar nazis, but hydrographic nazis?? WTH??? Edeans 04:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, then add redirect. Megan1967 04:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No redirect because what's the chance anyone will try to go to "Asian tsunami : The earthquake"? Carrp 17:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just silly. I'd consider speedy deletion appropriate in this instance, considering the circumstances. -- ChrisO 08:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Meesham 12:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mcpusc 09:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No question. Shmuel 07:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Hi all, I have listened to BanyanTree's advised & visited Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines ... found out some interesting pointers to share with you.

Key policies 1) Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically.

  • Was Curps Neutral when he deleted other points of view, even if they were differing. The term "Asian Tsunami" is an accept term or name for the event that happened on the 26th Dec 2004, covered by news media and the net. Blatantly calling 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is silly because there have been hundreds of earthquakes very week since 26th Dec 2004 but there is only one deadly tsunami that has been named by the media as the "Asian Tsunami".kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Point is, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was the name of the article that already existed. Renaming an article that lots of people are following is a big change. That article is in a state of flux at the moment, because the tsunami is a current event. After a few months, things will settle down. You'd be better off making whatever contributions you have to the existing article, and if, later, consensus develops that it is badly named it might be moved then. PaulHammond 12:53, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Moreover, the earthquake was in the COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA (if we want to be precise) not exactly in the Indian Ocean per say ... 2004 Indian Ocean is wrong big time !! There were more than a few hundreds earthquakes in the Indian Ocean in 2004 too !! kenkam 08:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The earthquake epicentre was about 150km west of far-northern Sumatra. In the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean does not begin at the west coast of Sumatra there, it begins at the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Sumatra is well and truly IN the Indian Ocean. Click here for a map of the Indian Ocean. As for how specific the title should be, I don't know. But it's already been to a vote once, and you were the only person in favour of your proposed title. Finally, it is not entirely relevant whether our title matches what the mainstream media has been calling it. We have redirects in place that also show up in search engine results with the same content, so people searching for any of the titles will be able to find the Wikipedia article. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Mark, thank you for your pointed comments. USGS FAQs calls the earthquake "Magnitude 9.0 OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA" and 68 other earthquakes were recorded since that day.kenkam 10:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If you by chance go to the western coast of Northern Sumatra for a holiday, and dip your toes in the water at the beach, you are dipping your toes in the Indian Ocean. Similarly, if you dip your toes in the water at the eastern coast of Northern Sumatra, you are dipping your toes in the Indian Ocean. The earthquake happened in the Indian Ocean. Can you clarify what you mean by "not exactly in the Indian Ocean per say"? - Mark 10:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Kenkam, if something is off the coast then it is in the ocean. And 150 kilometers off the coast of Sumatra is well into the Indian Ocean. Had the epicenter been on land, the effects would have been very different. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is like claiming that the puddle south and west of Los Angeles isn't the Pacific Ocean. 23skidoo 15:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) Don't infringe copyrights. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Submitting work which infringes copyrights threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal problems. See Wikipedia copyrights for more information.

  • No problems here. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further. See What Wikipedia is not for more info.

  • An 'encyclopedia' by Wiki definition is "containing articles on topics in many different fields ... specialise in a particular field", by branching Asian Tsunami to its categories covering specialised field & topics is my purpose & goal. In fact, I have come to a point to consider creating a "Asian Tsunami" Wiki project on my own ... care to contribute here ;-) kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4) Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, Wikipedia:Civility, Dispute resolution.

  • I admit I see thing differently, maybe because I am orient-asian, from a land far away ... in this case at the epicentre of the disaster ... I need some respect & space which Curps has failed big time in rendering to me / others. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You deserve space because you are at the epicentre of the disaster? I thought you lived in Singapore, which was virtually untouched by the disaster... - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Space as in respect & understanding ... yes ! Singapore is less than 1,000km from the epicentre, where Thailand, Bangkok is by distance further at 1,260km. Singapore was spared by God's grace because of the land mass of Sumatra & Peninsula Malaysia. We are nearer than any of the affected countries, furthest is East Africa, 5 times the distance from Singapore. Singapore is blasted with news everyday ... can't blame me for the Asian Tsunami Propaganda ... media says so !!... ;-) kenkam 10:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No one blames you for considering it. However, it is ignoring consensus and forking new articles which concerns me. As you rightfully point out, you live in a part of Asia that was not directly affected by the tsunamis, whereas other non-Asian countries which border on the Indian Ocean were affected. This is exactly why your proposal was not approved. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour guidelines 5) No personal attacks (and move personal debates to email)

  • I am attacked by Curps ... if this was real-life I would have been murdered by him already !! ... ;-) kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't be silly, Kenkham! Making absurd comments like this doesn't help people to calm down and focus on the articles. PaulHammond 12:57, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • You called Curps's actions vandalism. That's one of the most common personal attacks around here. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6) Please do not bite the newcomers

  • Not only did Curps bite me, he chew the bits he bit-off from me !! He bit me when I was new, before I had an account, and he is bitting me now too !! kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Don't bite the newcomers" works fine until the newcomers start ignoring policy and consensus, and start stuffing things up. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry ... not ill intent meant. kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

7) Three revert rule (Revert wars considered harmful)

  • While I had the courtesy to announce my idea to propose a change of name of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, he just went ahead & moved my articles without consultation & consensus more than afew times ... poor me. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • First off, they are not *your* articles. Nobody owns these articles. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree.kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Secondly, the unanimous vote on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake showed a clear consensus to leave the primary article on the disaster at that title. By creating this new article at your own chosen title, you are ignoring that consensus. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not neessarily ... I branched other topic that had evloved from the event and do not plan to not talk about indian ocean earthquakes in 2004 which is what 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was about ... right ? kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, with regards to the three-revert rule which you have listed this under, you have already twice reverted the addition of the VfD notice to the top of Asian tsunami : The earthquake. Adding this message is a matter of Wikipedia policy, which you now seem familiar with, so why did you revert Curps with a edit summary like "Deliberate vandalism by User : Curps"? - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Did I not leave it alone after that ? I make mistake too ...;-( kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • On the other hand Curps has deleted my comments too (he reinstated it) and moved articles without first seeking move consensus, when the intent of the new article are not about earthquakes in indian oceans but about the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami (true to it title) ... kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Kenkam, you keep saying "Curps has moved articles without consensus". Can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean that sections of articles have been moved around within one article, or that articles have been renamed without discussion? If the latter, were these substantial articles, or duplicates of larger articles that needed merging and redirecting? Did anyone else complain about these edits? You need to be exact (and preferable point to the appropriate page histories) when making claims like this. PaulHammond 13:03, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Applying Wikipedia:Google test linked from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ;

Please see searches for tsunami on Google's December 2004 Zeitgeist Archive ranked as 1st and also absence of earthquake searches on Google's January 2005 Zeitgeist Archive. As of 12th Jan 2004 search hits for just the word tsunami alone in Google is 27,800,000.

See also Wikipedia:List of articles frequently visited through Google.

Ranked Term Used Search Results Site Hits (12 Jan 2005)
Googles Yahoo MSN
1st "Asian Tsunami" 5,180,000 2,180,000 441,196
2nd "Indian Ocean Tsunami" 2,600,000 917,000 152,025
3rd "Indian Ocean Earthquake" 1,150,000 809,000 154,343

We should let the numbers decide themselves because that's how the world sees it.

kenkam 21:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Search results are irrelevant. A search on any of those three search engines for 2004 Asian tsunami already brings up the Wikipedia article up as the number 1 result. People will see our article as the top web page out of however many millions no matter what phrasing they use to refer to the disaster. - Mark 09:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

just presderve the world from the upcoming diasters ........................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.126.162 (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_tsunami_:_The_earthquake&oldid=1166418087"