The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete this current version. Replace with either redirect or disamb which may require further discussion, if nessecary. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written text with few informative content - Al-Bargit 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) On 18:03, 18 April 2007 the above "Al-Bargit" edited the article, and then 22 minutes later he claims that its poooorly written. Do you want to say Al-Bargit that you made it poorly written? I understand your frustration when you want to do something for humanity and the other reverting you. Is the rejection of single human what prompts you to this aggression against humanity?
2) I noticed that is exactly one month since you removed the "peace" infobox from you user page. :)
3) If you want to cover your vandalism/destruction evidenced in page history... Right deleting this article will delete your "contribution", but also numerous contributors who edited the subject since 2002. I understand to delete some new nonessential entries but not important (as I presume) to all humans description of Humanity!
(Following Nasz's numbered bullets) (1) On 18:03, 18 April 2007, Al-Bargit did, indeed, replace the article with this page, disambiguating the term. He did so after numerous attempts in February to redirect the article to the page human. Both he and Debollweevil were involved in this attempt to redirect. When Al-Bargit's edit in April was reverted, he tagged the article AfD. As such, there was no suggestion by Al-Bargit that he “made [the article] poorly written” and there is no sign of “ aggression against humanity.” (2 and 3) I do not understand what either of these points have to do with the discussion at hand. Both are Ad hominem arguments, and thus, fallacious. If any of Al-Bargit's edits actually looked like “vandalism/destruction”, there would be reason to call the good faith of his AfD nomination in question, as you do below by suggesting he wanted to “cover his vandalism/destruction evidenced in page history.” However, all of Al-Bargit edits were clearly made in good faith. Page History: It is worth noting that redirects of the sort attempted by Al-Bargit had been attempted as early as 17:35, 8 November 2003. It remained a redirect until the revision by Freemarket on 11:14, 8 October 2006. However, the material added by Freemarket was part of the human article since at least. 00:49, 26 September 2006. On 16:25, 26 January 2007, user Silence must have noticed this and again changed the page to a redirect. Thus, it seem clear that the current material is merely trying to rebuild the old article which was clearly moved from the human article. Final Notes Seeing this page history, it seems clear to me that the current material must go. As I have stated previously, a redirect to human or human nature will not be sufficient. Thus again I propose we post a disambiguation page similar to the one posted by Al-Bargit on 18:03, 18 April 2007. For a draft of this page see this page: User:Fixer1234/Humanity. Fixer1234 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I do not see errors in my text above.
2) I think that the worst case of aggression against 'this humanity' is to erase it from server memory.
3) I see logical inequality between meaning human and humanity. If human = humanity why are millions of people for hundreds of years use 2 words? Who can't see a clear logical distinction between human and humanity?
Delete unless improved, seems like a place-holder we don't need. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert Seems to have at one time been a halfway-decent article that was vandalised. I dunno which version was the absolute best, but this one is at least substantially better than the garbage that's there now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that info was merged into the human article. 216.87.207.1 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to other material. Redirect to human or a similar core-topics article in order to discourage recreation. YechielMan 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one's hard to say. On one hand, it is seemingly the subject of an edit war, in which one user sees fit to add gibberish that almost looks like Engrish. On the other hand, it seems redundant to other content. Either way, I am all for a delete, then redirect to Human being, if GFDL will allow it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and make the page a redirect to human.— JyriLtalk 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous article - proceed to make it a redirect to human as stated above BookswormTalk to me! 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Human a disambiguation page, (see below) as a probable search term. ◄Zahakiel► 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: The current article should be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation. A redirect to human or human nature will not be sufficient, as humanity has multiple distinct and notable meanings. Please see User:Fixer1234/Humanity for a draft of a replacement for this page. I believe it has already been noted that the usable material in the older version of the page has been merged. Given this, I firmly recommend the current article be speedily replaced by my new page.Fixer1234 23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That material has been merged into human. Fixer1234 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Aecis what is the [human race] you propose in your reverted edition. if you realy mean race then only one or all [human races]. I dont think , strting article on humanity with race is good starting point. Do you realy think you Aecis reverting point is the best one? If yes what do you mean by the [human race] ?
Aecis propose revert to point strting with words. Humanity refers to the human race or mankind as a whole, to that which is characteristically human, or to that which distinguishes human beings from other ...
Sidenote: To whomever asked the question above: “Human race” is a relatively common term referring to all human beings. It is is synonym of humankind. Fixer1234 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The current stance of the article serves little purpose. With that said, the Human article is quite long and splitting the information that was merged in it out back to Humanity may not be a bad idea. But the current state can not exist. MECU≈talk 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I'd like to reiterate, that due to “humanity's” multiple meanings, a simple redirect will not be sufficient. Article which pertain to the varied meanings of humanity already exist on wikipedia. Thus, what is needed is a page with links to this material. See my previous post for a link to my draft of such a page. Fixer1234 01:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have seen the disambiguation page by Fixer1234, and I agree that directing the term to a page like that is probably the best solution, since the term does have multiple meanings. ◄Zahakiel► 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note- Since the indictor abandoned the "court", the best motion, is to dismiss the case. Nasz 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The “indictor abandoning the court" should have no bearing on this AfD. Either he or she was justified in nominating this article for deletion or not. The material I have just posted above, I think, shows he or she was justified. While my proposal is that the page be replaced with something like this instead of being deleted, I think Al-Bargit was right to bring this issue to our attention. Fixer1234 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
formal question : It seems that indictor in absentia appears in trail. Should the pursuit in deletion of Humanity continue? Nasz 17:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with article proposed by User:Fixer1234/Humanity. This should also be tagged as a disambiguation page, to discourage its future expansion. Peterkingiron 16:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethis article which is content-free and has no references. However if someone could write a totally different article which was properly refed and actually said something it could be useful. NBeale 05:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a viable option, but it does not take care of the redundancy problem. Various editors (who've posted to this page) have noted the redundant nature of the current humanity article. The articles human and human nature already contain any info that might be incorporated into an article that follows the outline of the current version of the humanity article. I think we can predict that any full fledged article that appears in this space will follow an outline similar to the current article. (And as I have noted in other posts, the current article appears to be trying to "rebuild" an older version of the article that doubled material from the culture and society sections of the human article.) -- A such, this option will not work unless we move this material out of the human article and into the humanity article. (I think MECU mentioned this option.) However, previous editors seem to have vetoed such a move. (See my recount of the article's history above.) -- More importantly, as I have said before, humanity has at least 3 common and notable but distinct meanings in English. (Again, see User:Fixer1234/Humanity.) As such, I really think our best option is to replace the current article with a disambiguation. Fixer1234 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
