Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Yourself Screening Tool: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
added to afd lists. |
→Check Yourself Screening Tool: Closed as delete (XFDcloser) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===[[:Check Yourself Screening Tool]]===▼
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''delete'''. The arguments by Hunter Kahn do not address the uncontested substantive problems with the article. Deleting unsalvageable promotional content in order to allow a neutral rewrite is standard practice. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 08:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
▲===[[:Check Yourself Screening Tool]]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Check Yourself Screening Tool}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Yourself Screening Tool|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 13#{{anchorencode:Check Yourself Screening Tool}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Check_Yourself_Screening_Tool Stats]</span>)
Line 8 ⟶ 13:
*'''Comment''' It sounds to me the nominator is saying this article ''is'' notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but that the article as it is written right now is problematic. If that is the case, it would seem AFD is ''not'' the way to go, per [[WP:RUBBISH]], and that instead the article should be merely improved... — [[User:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b>]][[User talk:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b>]] [[Special:Contribs/Hunter_Kahn|<b style="color:#595454">Ka</b>]][[User:Hunter Kahn/Autographs|<b style="color:#595454">hn</b>]] 04:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
:::The distinction is that it can be improved if it is fixable without complete rewriting--and I have fixed several thousand such articles in my 12 years here, but if it take complete or almost complete rewriting, it is better to start over, per [[WP:TNT]] (altho an essay, it does express the general view on a practical way) . From my experience, the best way of making the distinction is seeing if anyoneactually does rewrite it while it is at AfD. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
:::*It still seems to me that the argument you are making here is [[WP:RUBBISH|one of the specifically listed arguments to avoid]] in AFD arguments. AFD shouldn't be used to encourage re-writes of articles of subjects you consider notable. Even per the essay you cite, [[WP:TNT]], it seems the better solution than deleting it would be erasing the offensive content, reducing the article to a stub, then putting a template on it to encourage users to improve it. If it gets deleted, that will only discourage users from ever creating it again, since they will have seen it has already been deleted before. Given that the nominator himself asserts that the article subject is notable, I'm inclined to vote keep and encourage that they use more appropriate methods to encourage improvement... — [[User:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b>]][[User talk:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b>]] [[Special:Contribs/Hunter_Kahn|<b style="color:#595454">Ka</b>]][[User:Hunter Kahn/Autographs|<b style="color:#595454">hn</b>]] 02:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
::Actually, AfD is almost the only way to actually get articles rewritten. The page you cite is an essay, not policy, and the various things stated there in a definite tone are not that definite as they sound---they are followed in different degrees. 12 years ago, when I started engaging in these afd discussions, I would have argued as you did--at the time, we did not fully realize the dangers of letting promotional articles stay around in WP . It's not only that htey stay here as advertising, and even worse show up as authoritative in Google (that "feature" of Google wasn't there 12 years ago, either) , but they serve as the models for other articles. Promotional writers thing that if others have gotten away with it, so can they; good faith but naïve new ediors actually think that a promotional style of writing is what we want since they see so much of it here. If you think it can be fix, fix it. Now. If you cannot do it now, try it in draft space. But the one thing we should not do is leave such articles in mainspace. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 08:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
::*'''Keep'''. I don't want to just keep repeating the same arguments over and over, but suffice it to say, I profoundly disagree with your interpretation of what AFD is and should be (though I've seen others who agree with you before over the course of my 11 years here). And since you yourself have indicated this article subject is notable, I vote keep. — [[User:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b>]][[User talk:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b>]] [[Special:Contribs/Hunter_Kahn|<b style="color:#595454">Ka</b>]][[User:Hunter Kahn/Autographs|<b style="color:#595454">hn</b>]] 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology|list of Technology-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Health and fitness|list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
*'''[[WP:TNT|TNT]] Delete''' whatever article should be here, there's nothing that can be salvaged from this version. This is a PR essay /sales pitch.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 23:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||