Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Hunt
Non-encyclopedic. A POV diatribe against Fox Hunters. Jayjg 20:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- er.. redirect to Fox hunting? --Steinsky 20:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'd agree but I suspect Fox hunting seems very biased in favour of hunting, claims it's ancient etc. Misses out the bits about importing foxes from France in about 1900 etc.--Jirate 21:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I suspect that this user will interpret any votes that don't explicitly say "delete" as votes to keep the page. Jayjg 20:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is rather strange that in another conf, where your racism has been exposed, you had a bit of a paddy and now you've decide to go around marking up some of contributions for deletion. Is this just an other thing you do when stamping your feet doesn't get you anywhere. Seems abit personal, but atleast it's an improvment and is slighly more honest and up front than you normal attempts to introduce bias. Keep trying perhaps one day something honest will be said by you deliberatly and with knowledge of the facts.--Jirate 21:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Is that a vote for or against deletion? Jayjg 21:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is rather strange that in another conf, where your racism has been exposed, you had a bit of a paddy and now you've decide to go around marking up some of contributions for deletion. Is this just an other thing you do when stamping your feet doesn't get you anywhere. Seems abit personal, but atleast it's an improvment and is slighly more honest and up front than you normal attempts to introduce bias. Keep trying perhaps one day something honest will be said by you deliberatly and with knowledge of the facts.--Jirate 21:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If Fox hunting is biased, fix that then. Don't create new articles to avoid POV problems. --Improv 04:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't really want to get into more fights with the self righteous prigs, and this place is full of them see Jayjg, and fox hunting attracts many. Even this discussion is a covert attack by Jayjg.--Jirate 11:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if it's tiring dealing with them -- creating duplicate articles to avoid them is the wrong thing to do, and it'll just draw them to the duplicate article anyhow. Personally, I dislike fox hunting too, but if I felt the articles on it were POV, I would commit myself to dealing with their authors, and to making a good NPOV article rather than making another POV article on the other side. You need to do the same if you want to contribute. --Improv 13:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I suspect that this user will interpret any votes that don't explicitly say "delete" as votes to keep the page. Jayjg 20:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to fox hunting. No merge, since it's hopelessly POV. — Gwalla | Talk 21:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to fox hunting; this is not the place to discuss the POV issues in the latter article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fox hunting. This stub suggests that there's a separate organization called "Fox Hunt" that organizes hunts. If so, it could be mentioned in Fox hunting or could merit its own article if there's more information about it, but this stub is completely uninformative about such an entity. JamesMLane 22:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirected to Fox hunting. See here for the old version. Rossami 22:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect.Mark Richards 19:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)