Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 even with consideration as to the multiple voting by two or three editors no consensus of action was determined - article kept. --VS talk 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday of alpinism[edit]

Birthday of alpinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Content was forked out of Francesco Dionigi after that article was put up for AfD. This is an attempt to circumvent the AfD process --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a completely different article based on a noteworthy calender date of a special event - two different subjects with no relationship of any particular point of view being common to the two. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be helped in producing the new article. See Talk on the article itself. My understanding of something being "forked" would be that the same point of view is being carried over, which is not the case here. If there is a "point of view" on these subjects I believe it might be closest to:
  • Aside from the forking issue, there's no indication that the "Birthday of alpinism" is a notable concept. Is it celebrated by anyone? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has multiple reliable secondary sources. Evouga 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general idea at that AfD was that because this is notable, the small amount of material on the Diongi could be merged into here. This is a celebration of a major work by a major author. DGG 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That AfD is ongoing, and hasn't resulted in any consensus yet. This wasn't a "merge", it's a content fork created yesterday. I don't see how it can be acceptable to create a content fork during an ongoing AfD. Furthermore, the creator claims that this article is about "a noteworthy calendar date". That's not the same thing as the poem! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is an interesting bit of info, but I don't see how it needs its own article, particularly one as badly named as this one. Merge it to alpinism and/or Petrarch. Brianyoumans 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Alpinism per Brianyoumans. There's no reason we need a "Birthday of sport/product" article for every single thing that has ever been invented. -- Plutor talk 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The phrase only exists in Wikipedia and its mirrors. All the references are to the original works of Petrarch and of other citations of that work, and none using this phrase of concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (probably). I vote keep as a separate article depending on whether this phrase was used before or is newly coined. There's nothing here that says it is established; if that information is added then it seems perfectly notable. Doug says "...has been designated." When and where? Rigadoun (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that is not the correct word to use here. Mostly what I have found is the word "regarded". Designated and "regarded" are different words with similar meanings. "Designated" perhaps would mean something closer as being "offically documented" - and the word "regarded" should be used here instead. If you feel this is more correct, go ahead and change it.--Doug talk 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we have any reliable sources that call this date the "birthday of alpinism"? I don't see any; the only source in the article that used something close ("the birthday of the alpine") was a German language website hosted in the Czech Republic, the article cited a version machine-translated by Google. That wasn't a reliable source, and I removed it. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The secondary sources attest to facts about Petrarch (all of which are or ought to be in his article). Nothing attests to the "birthday of Alpinism" (and Mount Ventoux is not a difficult climb); the closest is Burckhardt, and that's really the birth of Romanticism. A novel synthesis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Septentrionalis above. No need to merge in my opinion; Alpinism redirects to Mountaineering, which already contains the relevant information about Petrarch in the the "History" section. Deor 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My original suggestion was to name this for the poem/letter, which as a major work of world literature will have abundant references. I'd still prefer it. I agree the present title seem a little lame. DGG 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What makes this article separate from the articles of (say) Petrarch or mountaineering is the idea that the anniversary is notable. That seems to be original research. Bucketsofg 12:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - disgusting attempt to circumvent other afd. The phrase "birthday of alpinism" does not seem well-used, if at all, so don't redirect. All the content is in the article this was originally copied from so if its going to be merged that should be discussed at that afd. This should just be deleted. Savidan 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - several additional references has been added to the article pertaining to this event and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism.--Doug talk 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the additional sources provided in Doug's edit [1] uses the phrase "birthday of alpinism", so they do not justify the existence of the article. In addition, several of the sources seem to fail WP:RS. This site is just plain wrong; Petrarch did not climb "all the way to the top of the Alps." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a different name for the article is in order: "Father of Alpinism." Couldn't tell you if he went all the way to the top or not, however these sources seem to talk about his ascent of Mount Vertoux by Petrarch and his companions and brother. Can you be more specific as to which sources you feel are not correct? Is it Morris Bishop's book of Petrarch and his World or Jacob Burkhardt book Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy or the Famous First Facts? Did you research these in the library to see?--Doug talk 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another name that might be even more appropriate would be "Birth of Alpinism." As noted by Morris Bishop, "Probably by design, for Petrarch had a great sense of anniversaries, he planned the ascent for April 26, 1336, exactly ten years from the day he and Gherardo had left Bologna." Also Bishop noted Petrarch as "..."the first modern mountain-climber", therefore this date would be as its "birth" and Petrarch as its "father." Its noteworthy because this date is known as the start of modern Alpinism - the sport of mountain climbing just for the sport of it. This was not done as such, before this date.--Doug talk 18:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much what I was saying all along - that "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism" has been in these articles for the last 3 years (in addition to European Wikipedias in German, Italian, and French) - however now that we have done this additional research it appears that the exact wording of "Birthday" can not be attributed to a well known author, which the date itself can and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism can. Therefore this would be a great opportunity having this article and linking to it from these many other articles to explain the "birth" as a significant event (which has many references to show it). I think Birth of Alpinism is an appropriate renaming.--Doug talk 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I started this article on the "Birthday of Alpinism" many of these other articles have since been tagged for a citation source of this quote plus "Father of Alpinism" that has been around for 3 years with no source. This now is a great opportunity to Keep this article and not only use it for the citation repairs for these many articles, but as a link also. These other articles then can just be edited accordingly as Birth of Alpinism just by dropping the part "day". Then all these other articles on Petrarch, Mont Ventoux, and Mountaineering (and possibly others) can be linked to this new article with a full article explaining everything with references accordingly as to why this is significant.--Doug talk 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential names for this article could be
      • "Birth of Alpinism"
      • "Birth day of Alpinism"
      • "Birth date of Alpinism"
      • "Day of birth of Alpinism"
      • "Start of Alpinism"
      • "Beginning of Alpinism"
      • "Genealogy of Alpinism"
      • "Origin of Alpinism"
      • "Inception of Alpinism"
  • With the many citation tags now in all the articles that have "Birthday of Alpinism" and "Father of Alpinism" there are potentially now about a dozen links that could be make to this article explaining everything. These two items are inter-related, so links coming from either to this article would be appropriate. There would be potentially many more links anytime there is a reference to "father of mountain climbing" or "start of modern day mountaineering" or "environmental history" and similar topics.--Doug talk 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite the contrary - it now has over a dozen very reliable sources from various references. No reference to Wikipedia itself. This would now be a great opportunity to fix all the citation tags in these various other articles asking for references for "Birthday of Alpinism" and "Father of Alpinism" by just linking to this article. Both those topics are well covered in this article with many references. Yes, these quotes have been around for 3 years in these articles, however now there are citation tags requesting references. This article solves that problem, especially if the new name were Birth of Alpinism. This is a great opportunity then to clean up all these other articles that have had these quotes for 3 years. If this article were renamed to Genealogy of Alpinism then it would become a very large article with many items related to the history Alpinism.--Doug talk 12:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have time to go through all of them now, but it appears that all of the sources that Doug's added are websites, largely tourism/mountaineering websites, that don't meet WP:RS. In addition Doug, why do we need a separate article on this concept, when it's mentioned in Petrarch, Mont Ventoux, and Mountaineering, and citations can be given in those articles? Why is "birthday of alpinism", or whatever you want to call this content fork today, a significant, notable concept worthy of its own article? Are any of the articles you've turned up exclusively about Petrarch's climb as the beginning of mountaineering, or is this just an incidental claim in articles that are about another subject? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that "Birthday of Alpinism" is an entirely different subject altogether than the person Francesco Dionigi.Yes, most talk about Petrarch's climb as the beginning of modern mountaineering known today as Alpinism. Most of the websites sources are on Mountaineering History. The many book reference sources are on the significance of the event. Petrarch's adventure of this ascent to the top of Mont Ventoux is considered a turning point in Western civilization and a milestone in human history generally. There are over two dozen sources in the article showing the significance of this major event. There are so many sources that reference it as the "Birthday of Alpinism" that I believe it would be proper just to leave the name the same as it is now. If anything to make it a little more clear and the potential of a much larger article, renaming to Genealogy of Alpinism would be good. Have you checked out the library reference sources? Another interesting point is its significance in the man-in-nature concept and environmental history.--Doug talk 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the links you've spammed the article with fail Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, and in fact most of them are mirrors of Wikipedia; this one repeats the text from Mountaineering#History; so does this, this, this, this, . The reference to Petrarch on this page is from a jumbled copy of the text from Mountaineering#History. Same here and here. This is a thinly disguised rewrite of the Wikipedia article. This one doesn't load, nor does this one. This one is a modified version of the Wikipedia article on Petrarch--it says so on the bottom--and that's the article you're using as the evidence that Petrarch is considered the "father of Alpinism"?
    • This tourism site at least is not a copy of Wikipedia, but it doesn't meet WP:RS either. Same here. This timeline of Petrarch's life simply notes that in 1336 "Petrarch climbs Mount Ventoux", with no mention of the event's significance, or the exact day. This article devotes 2 paragraph's to Petrarch's ascent in a much longer article. This paper also briefly mentions the climb in a much longer account of Petrarch's career.
    • This is truly abominable sourcing for an event which you've just claimed is "a turning point in Western civilization and a milestone in human history generally"--and what is the source for this particular claim? Why it appears to be Thomas Hochstettler's inaugural speech as the president of Lewis and Clark College. As we all know, speeches given on such occasions never involve hyperbole, nor do they ever magnify relatively trivial events into turning points in world history for the purpose of illustrating the values of the new administration. (In any event, the speech is not about Petrarch's climb, no matter what claims it makes about its significance. The climb is merely an illustration of the speech's larger theme.) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some of those sites you mentioned are a "modification" of Wikipedia articles (from this being in these other articles for 3 years), so that's why I have provided many additional External Links referencing these same facts as well as many reference source books from the library showing the "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch as the "Father of Alpinism". I have provided several dozen references showing these facts, so even if some of them you don't like for whatever reason, there are others you can rely on. One example on this list is the location of a Petrarch Museum that references this, however there are still many more. As you can see finding references and sources to back this up is not hard to find. However let's say there are 20% of these that you don't approve, that still leaves 80% that can be relied on (leaving dozens of references). You can always find some reason for any reference that you could disapprove it for some "technicality". The point here is that there is much referencing these facts of the "Birth of Alpinism" being April 26, 1336, and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism." Just because there are some references you don't like personally that you may disapprove that doesn't make the rest of them not valid references. It just means some you don't like personally, which could then later be removed if other editors also don't like them. That would still leave dozens of very reliable sources from library reference books, to encyclopedias, to newspaper articles, to university papers written by professors in the field. Let's let others look over these several dozen references and if ultimately there are some that several editors disapprove, then just remove those. The article is still a very viable significant and notable event in history that has influenced mankind in all kinds of ways for nearly 700 years as is demonstrated by these many references. The article name could stand as "Birthday of Alpinism" since there are so many references showing it.--Doug talk 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very confident that any webpage that says the "birthday of alpinism" is April 26, 1336 and Petrarch is the "Father of Alpinism" got this information from Wikipedia. Most of the webpages you've cited are copies of Wikipedia content, often exact copies of text from Mountaineering. Circular referencing does not justify the existence of a Wikipedia article. As for books and magazine articles, you haven't shown that any call this day the "birthday of alpinism", nor have you demonstrated that in any of these references, Petrarch's ascent gets more than a passing mention. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about that. This German page (the author of which has published regarding mountain climbing) identifies Petrarch as the "father of alpinism" and calls April 26, 1336 the "birth hour of alpinism" (making it clear it's not a "birthday" in the sense of something celebrated on anniversaries). But I don't see why these claims need their own article. The fact is mentioned in the articles on the mountain and Petrarch. If this particular climb has so many details that it really needs its own article, it should be Ascent of Mount Ventoux, or more specifically Petrarch's ascent of Mount Vertoux, per Septentrionalis. Rigadoun (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for finding that page. My German is not very good, but I agree that the page you've found is not a copy of Wikipedia's content. However, I stand by my comments that the English language websites that call this day the "birthday of alpinism" are copies of Wikipedia's content--just compare the sites I linked above with Mountaineering#History and you'll find that most of them are copying the exact wording of the Wikipedia page, while some have reworked it slightly. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The additional references I provided does not have the exact wording of the Wikipedia page. Take for example footnote # 4 which uses the wording "beginning of alpinism". Also footnote # 7 uses the wording " birth of alpinism and Petrarch its father. " Then there is footnote # 8 which says " "the first recorded Alpinist" (which is in Morris Bishop's book, Petrarch and His World which I pointed out in the lead of the article). That is why I am suggesting to rename to Birth of Alpinism, since this is what all the references seem to reflect. The reason for the article is to show the significance in influencing the human intellect and philosophy. This is referenced in the first item in External Links with "Humanism" linked. The second item shows its influence as the potential intellectual precursor of Columbus crossing the Atlantic. The third item points out this "birth" as influencing the role of mountaineering and human quests in general. There are several more to follow with an analysis of the letter and its philosophical significance as the last one. So you can see from here it is not only just the start of modern day Alpinism but has influenced intellectual thinking for nearly 700 years, all related back to this event of the "birth."--Doug talk 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also footnote # 6 does not use this exact wording. The link went temporarily bad, so I replaced for now with a cached version.--Doug talk 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also in article lead I point out a 1995 University of Illinois paper referring to Morris Bishop calling Petrarch "the first modern mountain-climber."--Doug talk 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rework into Origins of alpinism or something like that. The concept itself is preposterous and apparently original to this article. However, much of this content could be worthwhile in the right context. The idea of the "birthday" may not warrant inclusion, but it does seem there is some kind of notable creation myth around Petrarch climbing that mountain. Of course, an "origins" article should be much broader than that, but it would be appropriate as a portion of it. Everyking 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Birth of Alpinism. I am not confident that any webpage that talks of the "birth of alpinism" as April 26, 1336 and Petrarch as the "Father of Alpinim" obtained this information from Wikipedia. However some of the sites may be "modifications" of articles that have been around for the last 3 years with those expressions. Since you asked if Petrarch's ascent on this date was the beginning of modern mountaineering, you can now see that it was. Also you can see now it is a very significant event since many people talk of this event to this day (almost 700 years later) and its influence on the human intellect and philosophy. I have removed those references that you feel are Wikipedia modifications and replaced with others. Perhaps also a renaming to Birth of Alpinism is more appropriate, since that is exactly what the article and its references are talking about. Did you check out The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy by Jacob Burkhardt where he describes Petrarch's ascent as the first time mountain climbing had been undertaken just for the sport of it? Also did you check the reference of Famous First Facts: International Edition where it credits Petrarch for writing of the first account of mountain climbing of importance? Did you check out Morris Bishop's book, Petrarch and His World where there is a long chapter titled "The Ascent of Mont Ventoux" and what I pointed out in the blockquote in the lead of the article? Morris Bishop calls Petrarch the first modern mountain-climber. Also Garrett Mattingly in his book Renaissance Profiles refers to Petrrch as being the Father of Alpinism, which also is in the lead. In the lead of the article also is Quadrant Magazine's article as it relates to environmental history and the man-in-nature concept. Since I just recently made several improvements, this new article (perhaps under this new suggested name of Birth of Alpinism) now is an excellent basis for others to contribute.--Doug talk 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming to Birth of Alpinism I believe to be most appropriate, instead of say Ascent of Mont Ventoux. The reason being that it is the beginning of modern day mountaineering, not just one event of a particular person climbing a particular mountain. As I already pointed out, it has a relationship to personal growth and self-knowledge as well as human quests in general. This event has special significance far beyond a single ascent to a mountain top since it is the beginning of many intellectual ideas, not just modern day mountaineering. The event influenced much Western Civilization thinking. This material, which can be obviously expanded considerably, deserves its own article.--Doug talk 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional reasons why I feel Birth of Alpinism is the most appropriate name is because it most precisely fits the article concepts and fits exactly with the associated reference wording:
      • "of discovery"
      • "birth of alpinism
      • "birthday of alpinism
      • "birth hour of alpinism
      • "new Renaissance (rebirth) spirit"
      • "beginning of alpinism"
      • "the first mountaineer"
      • "first recorded alpinist"
      • "pioneer of sightseeing"
      • "first modern mountain-climber"
      • "beginning conscious perception of landscape"
        --Doug talk 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to whomever takes on the task of closing this AfD. Doug has been very industrious in adding sources to try to save his article, but the sources he's adding are either of poor quality or provide only trivial coverage of the so-called birth of alpinism. For instance, this EU report only mentions Petrarch's climb on one page of a 160-page document; in this book Petrarch's climb is an anecdote mentioned briefly in the introduction but not in the main body of the text. Sources such as these should not overcome the already apparent consensus that the subject of this article is best covered in existing articles such as Mountaineering and Petrarch. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has not been a consensus that the subject is best covered in another article. It is obvious that with this much material on this subject by so many different quality references that it should be its own article. This is a major event in human history as these many sources show. The references should definitely be checked out as they will show are very high quality reliable sources. The references will stand on their own as being of significance and importance pertaining to this material and article. There are over 4 dozen high quality library references that show the importance of this major historical event. Just by reading the article itself one can see the historical importance of this as a breakaway point from the "Dark Ages". This event is the mark of the beginning of the new humanistic "Renaissance" spirit. This event has influenced the human intellect much in philosophy and other areas (i.e. humanities, mountaineering, religion, human endeavors, goals, natural science, environmental science, social sciences, etc) for the last 670 years since the event happened. To this day it is talked about much, especially in higher education. The only change I recommend is that the name of the article be changed from "Birthday of Alpinism" to "Birth of Alpinism" by dropping the word "day." This material would then apply to many articles and these other articles would link to this one because of the relationships. If I can come up with this much material on the event and it meanings, imagine how large the article will become when other Wikipedians get involved. I see the article splitting again into other parts because of its increased size that will develop with the future contributions by others.--Doug talk 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's some more "checking out" of the references:
    • Burckhardt's The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy devotes a paragraph to Petrarch's ascent in a larger discussion of the "Discovery of the Beauty of Landscape". That's trivial coverage of this "major event in human history."
    • Preface to Rudolf Steiner's Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age ([2]). The article implies that this reference is by Rudolf Steiner, but the preface is actually by Paul Marshall Allen. The ascent of Mt. Ventoux occupies one paragraph of this preface, and Petrarch is only mentioned in one other paragraph. This is trivial coverage in a long introduction which is giving the reader the background for the subject matter of Steiner's book, medieval and early Renaissance mystics like Meister Eckhardt, Nicolas of Cusa, etc. This illustrates the real significance of Petrarch's climb--it's an anecdote that appears in discussions of other subjects.
    • This New York Times article discusses Petrarch's climb as a foil for the author's own climb of Mt. Ventoux. Once again, trivial coverage. The NYT article also notes that "Jean Buridan, a Parisian, left an account of climbing Ventoux early in the 14th century, just before Petrarch." So the claim that this event is the "birth(day) of alpinism" needs some qualification. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I discuss more of the article's sourcing at Talk:Birthday of alpinism. Executive summary: the sourcing is very poor. --Akhilleus (talk)
  • Its interesting that for an article that Akhilleus feels is an article that needs to be deleted and the material is not sufficient material to become a full blown article, he "improves" it by removing major parts he feels are not good for the article - making major improvements to the article! Or is it that he does not want others to see the version of up to June 29 before he edited out major portions that I previously put in with extensive references. If the material is bad and the references not good, then why not let others (not emotionally involved with the article) see this material and let others judge for themselves. Since he has made all these "major improvements" to the article and given extensive reasons why the material is not good for the article, apparently his vote has changed to Keep - since he wants to make many "improvements" to the article because he feels the article deserves to be a full blown article. I am assuming this is what he is doing in removing these major parts, that he is just "improving" the article. Otherwise he is hiding this material and censoring the material from others because he feels the material is outstanding references. He has made 8 major "improvements" to the article since yesterday, apparently since he wants to Keep the new article, since I am assuming good faith that he is not censoring this material from others to see. He has studied the article for days and the refereces extensively since he feels the new article deserves this much time for improvements. He obviously wants the new article to get these excellent improvements, since his vote has now changed to Keep as a full new article. These "major improvements" (removing over 6000 bytes of information) are far more work than one would normally do just to add a section to an existing article - so obviously he wants to Keep it as a full new article of its own. Since his vote has now obviously changed to Keep, then we have mostly Keep votes. I am willing to let the article stand as it is now with all these excellent "major improvements" - and my only other suggestion is that the name change to Birth of Alpinism for the new article.--Doug talk 13:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a break. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deal! Edit in good faith and assume I am editing in good faith. Trust me on this one: you are not interested in bowling (I'd bet the farm on it!). And I am still a little puzzled as to what Francesco Dionigi has to do with mountaineering. Let's agree to let this article be Birth of Alpinism and let the community of Wikipedians edit it to their heart's content. Keep in mind, I have not edited any of your articles that you started (that I know of), however do edit articles you work on (but not take away any of your edits, just further improvements). Deal?--Doug talk 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I love bowling. If you think that Dionigi has nothing to do with mountaineering, why did you fork Birthday of alpinism out of Francesco Dionigi during an AfD? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point exactly - Dionigi has nothing to do with mountaineering! Francesco Dionigi (a person Petrarch wrote a letter to in 1336) and Birth of Alpinism (beginning of modern day mountaineering for the sport) are two completely different subjects (which happen to have similar references in some cases).
In Wikipedia:Content forking it points out: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." This means the same subject. Also under "What content/POV forking is not" in the section "Related articles" it says: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." Birth of Alpinism (beginning of the sport of mountaineering) is an entirely different subject than Francesco Dionigi (a person Petrarch wrote a letter to in 1336). They only contain some information and references in common with each other. Two entirely different subjects. Therefore there is no POV brought over, since there is no common POV.
Bowling: Great, I also love bowling, been doing it for 30 years and you? So then you know all about Automatic scorers? (since you made several edits to it)
The only reason I bring this up is because many of my articles I started you either nominate for deletion or tag for improvements or that they don't have adquate references. It seems pretty coincidential, since we have been debating this article. So happens that I worked for Brunswick as an Electrical Engineer in the 1970's and helped develop this specialized computer for the bowling industry. So I guess in this case, I would be considered "the expert" on the subject.--Doug talk 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bottomline then is that we are in agreement that your vote has changed to Keep, since you made all those "major improvements" to the article itself indicating your vote is "Keep" the new article. Do you then agree the name for this new article should be Birth of Alpinism? If your vote is still Delete then I assume it is alright with you to put back all the material with the multiple references that was already there at zero hundred hours 29 June. Since you are saying this is bad material with bad references, then by me putting back this material you removed it only would reinforce your point by allowing others to see the material with the extensive associated references. Obviously you can't have it both ways. I can only assume that you made these "major improvements" to the article because you feel the article itself deserves this. I will not assume you are censoring the material and editing the article in such a way to make it look bad so that it gets deleted. If the material you took out makes the article look bad and you want the article to be deleted, then why not allow this material to stay in the article. I will assume you are editing the article in good faith and want to Keep the article as a new article. I will assume that the reason you made these "major improvements" by deleteing major sections and multiple references is to improve the new article. If I don't hear back from you today, then I will assume you approve my putting back these large sections of extensive material I already had there 00:00 29 June that you removed with the dozens of references associated with them.--Doug talk 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • stop putting words in my mouth. I've already said that I think this article should be deleted, because it was created as a fork to evade the AfD on Francesco Dionigi and because its subject receives only trivial coverage in reliable sources. I removed material from the article because it had been stuffed full of terrible sources, including sites that were obvious copies of Wikipedia's Mountaineering article. I would not recommend reverting my changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you are saying is that your vote is Delete? Why then are you editing the article, since you feel the material is bad material. If it is in fact bad material, then it would be in your favor to allow others to see this material. You are saying then that you are not censoring the material and shaping the edits in such a manner to make the article look bad so it gets deleted? Why don't you want your edits reverted, unless of course you are in fact improving the article. The only reason you would edit the article with "major improvements" with these major deletions is if you want to Keep it as a new article?If you think the material I added up to 00:00 29 June (that you removed) is bad material, why not allow others to see it? That would be all in your favor!! Of course, anyone that wants to see this major deletion and see what the article looked like before you made these major deletions can of course just look in history at 00:00 29 June to see all these major references you removed. You are not censoring the material, are you? Why then can't I have this material in the article? Why have you then edited out these major references? What's the purpose? If the article is "stuffed full of terrible sources" then you are making improvements to the article. Why are you making major improvements to an article? The only purpose I can see is if you want to Keep it as a new article, since you would not be censoring the material from others to see. You have to decide if your vote is Keep or Delete. If it is Delete, then I should be permitted to have the references and the extensive material you removed - since in your words it is "terrible sources" anyway. This way then others can check this out to verify if it is such or if it is outstanding reliable sources that I contend. Let others verify themselves! If it is Keep, then decide if Birth of Alpinism or "Birthday of Alpinism" is the most appropriate name for the new article. I think the best name is Birth of Alpinism?
      Since you have edited out these major references, then the problem is solved and it is a Keep vote from your part to be a new article - is that correct?
    • As I have pointed out above per policy, this article is not a fork. Your definition of "a fork"? Need details, please. If the only real reason for deletion is that it has the same POV as Francesco Dionigi, then that problem is also solved. It obviously is not. Francesco Dionigi is a person Petrarch wrote a letter to. Birth of Alpinism is the beginnings of the sport of mountaineering and the philosophy aspects related to it. These are two completely different entities and subjects with completely different points of view - not even close to each other. The article on Francesco Dionigi was deleted because most of the editors felt that he was not notable enough for an article. Please explain to me (details) your definition of "a fork" - since I know what Wikipedia's policy is as I have pointed out above. Neither is a fork of the other.--Doug talk 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Akhilleus says that "this article should be deleted, because it was created as a fork to evade the AfD on Francesco Dionigi. I have asked his definition of "a fork", however have not received an answer. Wikipedia'a policy I pointed out above of Wikipedia:Content forking. It says that articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the same subject" (perhaps in the policy the word "same" should be added). I did not do this. Wikipedia further says what a content fork is not: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." My two subjects are definitely different and distint topics.

  1. The first distinct topic is Francesco Dionigi is a person. He was an Augustinian monk, a Professor of Theology, a close friend of Petrarch, and Petrarch's confidant. He was also a priest and had the title "Father." His patron was Robert the Wise (King of Naples, a.k.a. King Robert of Anjou). It was determined that this person was not notable enough for an article to be written up on him.
  2. The second distinct topic is Birthday of alpinism - a calendar date of April 26, 1336. Besides being the start of modern day monutaineering, it has special philosophical meanings. Francesco Dionigi has nothing to do with either of these.

Akhilleus continues to edit this article, however says his vote is to Delete the article. By doing these "major improvements" it gives an indication however his stance is Keep. He says I can not edit his edits: "I would not recommend reverting my changes." In the process of his major edits he has removed several of my key points that are key references to the article itself, which of course will make the article look like it should be deleted (since there are not adequate references). Some examples that were removed from my edits of 00:00 29 June that I feel are key points that should be allowed in the article are:

  • The wording "The sport of mountaineering began in the Alps and is the reason for the term alpinist - meaning mountain climber." Referenced then with encyclopedia reference as footnote [10].
This is important since it shows how the word alpinist came about and what it means.
This then relates to the reference of Morris Bishop where he calls Petrarch "the first mountain climber" - which is referenced in his book at page 104.
  • He won't allow a key passage from Petrarch himself as reflections he made of the ascent as he noted in his letter The Ascent of Mount Ventoux:

"Yes, the life which we call blessed is to be sought for on a high eminence, and strait is the way that leads to it. Many, also, are the hills that lie between, and we must ascend, by a glorious stairway, from strength to strength. At the top is at once the end of our struggles and the goal for which we are bound. All wish to reach this goal, but, as Ovid says, ‘To wish is little; we must long with the utmost eagerness to gain our end.’” Niccolò Machiavelli perceived plainly that the struggle against necessity required that an individual have excellence and freedom as primary life purposes."

  • He has removed key references from 00:00 29 June that back up the article theme of "birth of alpinism" and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism", some which have not been determined or noted in the article itself as originally coming from Wikipedia. Also there was another editor above that even challanged this thought ("Rigadoun"). Examples removed that I feel should be as references are in my 00:00 29 June edit:
History of First Ascents
Mountaineering History
Mountaineering Definitions and Statistics
Mountain Climbing News
Mountain Climbing History
Mountaineering History
Petrarch: The Grandfather of Alpinism
Petrarch: Books and the Life of the Mind
Location of a village where there is a Petrarch Museum and Monument identifying that April 26, 1336, is known as the "birth of alpinism and Petrarch its father."


--Doug talk 12:20, 30 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Birthday_of_alpinism&oldid=1136113566"