Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web based presentation tools
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philippe (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 21 April 2008 (Closing debate; result was keep - without prejudice against renomination if no significant improvement is done.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 23:29, 21 April 2008 by Philippe (talk | contribs) (Closing debate; result was keep - without prejudice against renomination if no significant improvement is done.)
- 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 keep - without prejudice against renomination if no significant improvement is done. - Philippe 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Web based presentation tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK Arx Fortis (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not delete the article, I am working at this article , I cannot prepare the full article in one day. I have made links so that users can visit & see sites and add about the respective site --Narendra Sisodiya (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep AfD came nineteen minutes after article creation; give it a couple of days at least. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A note to Norendra, it is starting in a bad way, if you're going to make a list like this, it should be of pages on Wikipedia, not external links. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly why I nominated it as an AfD. As-is, it's a directory of external links. If the links were changed to internal links, and each item received some descriptive info, it would reverse my opinion of the article. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JeremyMcCracken, this article is pretty dubious at the moment but I am happy to assume good faith for now and allow the author to expand it. It certainly is a topic that could be encyclopedic. ~ mazca talk 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per JeremyMcCracken. the article brand new, so let's assume good faith and give the man some time to work before we start judging the article. constructive criticism or correcting mistakes yourself will improve things far more than "OMG! a policy violation! must delete immediately!". Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grandmartin11, I ask that you don't assume tone or intent and not read anything into my nomination other than what it states. Your comment implies an alarmist tone and approaches a personal attack. AfD is not a "must delete immediately" situation. There is a completely separate speedy delete process for that. AfD is a process, not an automatic deletion. Dialog before decision is exactly why the AfD process is in place: to discuss the article's merits and drawbacks before a decision is made. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- nominating an article for deletion not even an hour after it was created just seems rather alarmist to me (though i wasn't intending to imply this is an attack) and IMO, flies almost directly in the face of WP:GOODFAITH. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the timing, the content warrants an AfD nomination per the two policy links I provided. The author is clearly building a page of external links (20+), rather than links to other Wikipedia pages. This is not so much a "work in progress", but rather a work going in a completely wrong direction. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- nominating an article for deletion not even an hour after it was created just seems rather alarmist to me (though i wasn't intending to imply this is an attack) and IMO, flies almost directly in the face of WP:GOODFAITH. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grandmartin11, I ask that you don't assume tone or intent and not read anything into my nomination other than what it states. Your comment implies an alarmist tone and approaches a personal attack. AfD is not a "must delete immediately" situation. There is a completely separate speedy delete process for that. AfD is a process, not an automatic deletion. Dialog before decision is exactly why the AfD process is in place: to discuss the article's merits and drawbacks before a decision is made. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whether or not the nomination was premature, the article as it currently stands seems to be little more than a link farm for a number of non-notable commercial websites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remove the all external links, will there be any need to delete the page --Narendra Sisodiya (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability needs to be demonstrated for the articles included. See if you can find some other links that demonstrate the notability of these (mentions in magazine/news articles would be great). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remove the all external links, will there be any need to delete the page --Narendra Sisodiya (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the subject matter should be kept, but not the format that the content is currently being presented. I think this should be converted to list form, instead of how it is now, which is basically a list of external links. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made changes now, externals links is converted to internal red links, see guide me now -- Narendra Sisodiya (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2008 (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.