Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Yourself Screening Tool
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Check Yourself Screening Tool (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)
highly promotional article , though on a worthy product. Almost all the article is devoted to the problems it hopes to solve, rather than the ostensible subject of the article. It needs complete rewriting, and the first step for that is to remove the existing PR-based article DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- 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... — Hunter Kahn 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. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- It still seems to me that the argument you are making here is 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... — Hunter Kahn 02:36, 14 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. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)