246:- I don't in the least disagree with you that this is a worthwhile subject for an encyclopedia article, but this article is of such poor quality that it it preventing a better article from being written. As in many cases trying to sort out facts from personal opinion in an unreferenced article such as this and find references to bring it up to Knowledge's standards is very difficult. I believe that there should be an article with this title but that it would be better to delete this article and start over, working from refs instead of scrambling to find refs to support this problematic text. As can be seen by how long this has been tagged as substandard and how little substantial work has been done recently, I think most editors look at it and walk away. -
287:- I am sorry that you took offence to my nomination language, as no offence was intended; it is just a factual statement. I found the article in a poor state, with virtually no refs, tagged for over two years, clearly no where near Knowledge's standards and not being actively improved. I PRODed it and you removed the PROD tag, with the suggestion that refs might be found on the French version. The article is still of as poor a quality as when I found it, so I have brought it here to hopefully have it improved, or deleted so it can be started over, working from refs as I mentioned above, instead of trying to find refs to support a large amount of opinion. My statement "
229:- regretably the term is used in current society and there are many links to this page. The term drew 30.4 million google hits. While Knowledge should not glorify this conduct, an encyclopedia article on this subject would be appropriate. I agree that the article is very low quality and someone should remove the orginial research and avoid defining the difference between a street fight and a riot (unless we can cite to an authoritative source). Perhaps the article should be expanded to cover the various criminal laws against such conduct.
344:- Thanks for your comments. I still believe that the article should be deleted and perhaps, if refs can be found, started over again rather than fixed through normal editing, as that approach hasn't worked over the last two years in this case. If no refs can be found, then by definition, it isn't a notable topic. Let's see what the result of this debate is and work from there. -
314:
Ok, sorry about that. It just seemed to me that you were ignoring the potential sources I had mentioned, but I see now that you were not. Anyway, if you think an article should exist on this topic, there is no need for a deletion discussion. You are free to completely replace all the text in the
467:
that we can't just leave it and wait for someone else to insert references to match all the assertions. Are any of us prepared to take the time to do that? On the other hand, we can't delete it entirely, or else someone will probably come up with a new post that looks just as rough as this one. I
269:
tag was removed without improving the article". As I pointed out in the edit summary, the French
Knowledge article was a former featured article, and though it recently lost it featured article status, it still has several references. However, I don't read a word of French, so there is no way I
421:
and clean up. It is a notable phrase/term which needs more than a dicdef, I've done some bits to try & improve it but it's a mess and needs someone to sit down & do a complete re-write to provide a frame work for building on (time I don't have right now)
315:
article if you think that would make it better (though you might want to discuss that on the article talk page first before doing so). Articles aren't normally deleted for being of poor quality, but only when an article shouldn't exist at all at that title.
468:
suggest leaving the first paragraph and deleting the rest, with a wiki note on the editing page that warns people to reference whatever they're going to say. This might be unconventional, but maybe it will solve the problem here.
369:
The topic is clearly notable, even if the article needs some serious work (although, frankly, it's not nearly as broken as any number of other articles on here, not that that's really meaningful or surprising information!).
489:
Thanks for your thought on this. Given that the overwhelming consensus seems to be to keep the article at this point, I am also concerned that once this AfD closes that all those who participated here and indicated
169:
291:
tag was removed without improving the article" is simple fact and wasn't intended as an insult. By the rules you are allowed to remove it for any reason and that is part of the reason that we are here at AfD. -
494:
will fade away and not work on the article, leaving it as bad as it is now. Once this AfD is closed I support your idea, we can take that up on the talk page at that time. -
124:
163:
270:
could improve the article using those references. Though I can't read the references, I would be very surprised if there wasn't some useable information there.
387:
per
Racepacket and Ginsenbomb. Not so awful it needs to be deleted, and of an obvious encyclopedic topic. 30 million Ghits must have a few good sources.
207:
for more than two years and tagged for clean-up for more than two and half years. The sole ref cited supports one single statistical fact in the article.
129:
97:
92:
101:
84:
17:
184:
429:
151:
518:
145:
36:
517:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
503:
477:
451:
434:
413:
396:
379:
353:
324:
301:
279:
255:
238:
220:
141:
66:
404:
Street fighting is real and notable. What needs to be fixed is the organization and layout of the article.
447:
375:
191:
234:
88:
177:
426:
409:
320:
275:
473:
443:
392:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
157:
371:
499:
349:
297:
251:
230:
216:
80:
72:
288:
266:
208:
442:
and clean up. Just needs more refs and general cleanup. Notable in its various uses.
423:
405:
316:
271:
469:
460:
388:
204:
118:
201:
495:
464:
463:
from beginning to end. While it is an extremely notable subject, I agree with
345:
293:
247:
212:
265:- As the person who removed the prod tag, I take offense to the statement "
511:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
114:
110:
106:
176:
211:tag was removed without improving the article. -
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
521:). No further edits should be made to this page.
190:
8:
7:
24:
200:This article has been tagged as
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
504:22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
478:22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
452:10:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
435:08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
414:05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
397:02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
380:20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
354:18:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
325:18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
302:17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
280:16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
256:17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
239:16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
221:15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
67:03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
538:
459:. This article reads like
514:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
205:original research
529:
516:
195:
194:
180:
132:
122:
104:
64:
34:
537:
536:
532:
531:
530:
528:
527:
526:
525:
519:deletion review
512:
457:Modified delete
432:
137:
128:
95:
81:Street fighting
79:
76:
73:Street fighting
60:
56:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
535:
533:
524:
523:
508:
507:
506:
481:
480:
454:
437:
430:
416:
399:
382:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
307:
306:
305:
304:
260:
259:
258:
198:
197:
134:
130:AfD statistics
75:
70:
58:
54:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
534:
522:
520:
515:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
488:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
475:
471:
466:
462:
458:
455:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
436:
433:
427:
425:
420:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
381:
377:
373:
368:
365:
364:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
326:
322:
318:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
299:
295:
290:
286:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
268:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
62:
61:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
513:
510:
491:
486:
456:
444:CarolMooreDC
439:
418:
401:
384:
366:
341:
284:
262:
243:
226:
202:unreferenced
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
53:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
440:Strong Keep
402:Strong keep
372:Ginsengbomb
164:free images
231:Racepacket
57:rbitrarily
487:Comment:
406:Portillo
317:Calathan
272:Calathan
125:View log
470:Yoninah
389:Bearian
342:Comment
289:WP:PROD
285:Comment
267:WP:PROD
263:Comment
244:Comment
209:WP:PROD
170:WP refs
158:scholar
98:protect
93:history
142:Google
102:delete
496:Ahunt
465:Ahunt
346:Ahunt
294:Ahunt
248:Ahunt
213:Ahunt
185:JSTOR
146:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
500:talk
492:keep
474:talk
448:talk
424:Nate
419:Keep
410:talk
393:talk
385:Keep
376:talk
367:Keep
350:talk
321:talk
298:talk
276:talk
252:talk
235:talk
227:Keep
217:talk
178:FENS
152:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
46:keep
192:TWL
127:•
123:– (
502:)
476:)
461:OR
450:)
422:--
412:)
395:)
378:)
352:)
323:)
300:)
278:)
254:)
237:)
219:)
172:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
48:.
498:(
472:(
446:(
431:c
428:/
408:(
391:(
374:(
348:(
319:(
296:(
274:(
250:(
233:(
215:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
121:)
83:(
59:0
55:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.