Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firepool

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 delete. A review of the article's history clearly indicates that this article was at least partially, if not entirely, created to be humorous/satirical in nature (see the first version, for example). Further, most of the sources linked by Northamerica1000 (t c) use quotes around the term, implying it is not an actual term or an object in common use apart from this controversy. With that said, the keep !votes have very little sway under policy for keeping an article that portrays a one-off occurrence of a particular term as a common object. No prejudice against creation of an article with an appropriate title such as "Nkandla firepool controversy" or against inclusion of the topic in a related article. —Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firepool

[edit]
Firepool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Parody article, created around recent events concerning Jacob Zuma and Nkandla Stuart Steedman (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possibly because when created it looked like a joke article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not anymore. I fixed the spelling errors you pointed out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now; will !vote later. Perhaps it could be kept and rewritten or redirected into an article about firefighting. Has been mentioned in the media: here and here. Oh, and this too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Snow Keep clearly passes WP:GNG per above. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the report mentioned is incorrect, it is not "Opulence on a grand scale", but "Secure in Comfort" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuli_Madonsela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.196.63 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nkandla (homestead) We do not need a separate article for this. The word only has meaning in the Nkandla context. Sources use scarequotes around the term with contempt to indicate it is not actually a thing at all so why would we? The article may have been intended as satire (or something) but could actually backfire by giving the term credibility. HelenOnline 06:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The idea that a firepool is a perfectly normal thing is part of the propaganda around this issue. An important function of Wikipedia is to provide the facts, in situations where propaganda may be convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtapson (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Jtapson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I agree with HelenOnline that this really is only related to Nkandla. It does not meet the requirements of being a WP:NEOLOGISM as it is not in wide use. As far as I can tell, this has not even been discussed in a general way, like, firefighters saying they regularly use pool water as a water source or something. If controversy continues with articles like this one, I agree with creating something like Zuma spending controversy. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - Part of the ongoing debate around the Nkandla issue BoonDock (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - Factually accurate but the firepool doesn't merit a page of its own. It should be covered on the Nkandla page Biscuit1018 (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - Cleary part of the Nkandla debate and should be merged with that article. Conlinp (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. The value of swimming pools as a reservoir for fighting brush fires has been long known and recognized (and is easy to source) but political expedience isn't a good reason to pretend that they are now suddenly a new and independently-notable different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is factually correct and it is not a parody because the pool actually exists in Nkandla and it was referred to as a fire pool. Its use was even demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.82.10.65 (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMO this is a clever parody (which I enjoyed.) Yes the ANC government claims the pool's primary purpose is for firefighting, I would argue that the majority of the public don't believe this to be true.[10][11] Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 08:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of truth, reliable sources refer to it as a firepool so the correct term for the article would be firepool. It meets WP:GNG and doesn't fall under any of the Wikipedia:NOT categories. Appable (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument might hold water (no pun intended) if it was an article about a "firepool" instead of a firepool, because that is how reliable sources refer to it. HelenOnline 17:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is factually accurate and should be on Wikipedia. RJ -03 June 2015 - 15:52 GMT+2

Take it down we will just put it back up WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.242.203.35 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 197.242.203.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(Above !vote moved from AFD talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 14:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - It is not a parody and it is factually correct. The term 'firepool' was created to refer to the specific pool at the Nkandla compound and does not cause confusion. Aandiebrand (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Aandiebrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Factual article, in fact they need to spend even more money to improve the efficiency of the fire fighting equipment. Extra booster pump and hoses required. (Fudpukker (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - It's a highly factual article. Haven't actually seen such a good and well maintained article on Wikipedia in a long time. The only thing that could make it better is not converting the currency to $23 million as such direct comparisons can't be made. --105.11.221.8 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 105.11.221.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep It is indeed a factual article. As much as I'd like it to be a parody - it isn't. Agentrfr (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Agentrfr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep It is based on fact and reputable sources proving it exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.92.233 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 105.210.92.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Its all fact however absurd it may seem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.12.228 (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — 41.160.12.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - It is factual and relevant. I can see that the term and meaning of it will be added to Oxford, just as "Selfie" made it, which might have been absurd at the time the word was introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwiftSmoker (talk • contribs) 08:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — SwiftSmoker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - This is all fact based on official government stance, government enquiries, and the Minister of Police. A "firepool" is indeed a South African reality, as shown in the many citations to the article. It would be much better if this was fake, but sadly it is not. Richard Le Mesurier (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Richard Le Mesurier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep – As it is a seperate issue from the Nkandla debacle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicc777 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Nicc777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - This is all fact based on official government stance, this is unfortunately not a fake or parody. This should be left on wikipedia as it serves the same purpose as the rest of wikipedia (enriching people in their knowledge). Thank you. 197.77.14.200 (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — 197.77.14.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Apart from being factually correct, and being written in a straight-faced tone, this article is important, since it represents an objective account of the creation of the firepool, and all the statements and rationale offered by the government, hosted on a system beyond the control of the government of South Africa. Keeping accurate records of government misspend, spin, and propaganda is crucial to democracy as a whole, and under pending FPB regulatory overhaul, articles like this could be easily censored under overly-broad powers. Wogan May (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Wogan May (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Unfortunately, the word has been invented to describe a reservoir that has been spruced up to serve a double purpose, in this case, as a swimming pool. So form this point of view it is now a term requiring a reference. What should maybe be removed is the elaboration of the definition by referring the Nkandla on going saga in South Africa. All this "information" could be added to the article on Nkandla and a simple link used to refer to the background. Daniellgr (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)User:daniellgr — Daniellgr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep : Surely Zuma and his government have nothing to hide in this regard and the article is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.234.173 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — 86.205.234.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep – The decision on whether to keep Firepool should not be based on the Nkandla instance. Instead, a consensus should be reached as to whether or not the use of Firepools themselves are considered significant enough to warrant having its own article explaining them. If it is common to build pools for firefighting purposes, then the term Firepool is justified - otherwise not. If the significance is too low, then the term/concept could at least still be merged into firefighting and/or swimming pools (a possible but unintentional 'use' for swimming pools). If the term is downright absurd, then it should be exposed as corruption on Jacob Zuma's page. But if Firepools stay, then the Nkandla instance would be a perfect example of one. The controversy and cost are separate matters - instead the real question is whether or not the concept is absurd or not in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragtion (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is not a parody but actual fact and event that happened in south africa, still standing, now everyone has an extra use for a swimming pool.105.225.79.41 (talk) jaco mahuma — 105.225.79.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - this is indeed a factual article as much as I wish it weren't. evidence of Zuma's corruption should be kept so the international community may know what he is doing to South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.164.178.69 (talk • contribs)

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/Firepool&oldid=1137850225"