- 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV Content Fork. Promotes a fringe right-wing view of politics and demographics. Nimur 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of the original author is to re-write most of the Lebanon Article distinctly from the main article; this will subvert the standard WP editing process. The factual accuracy is highly disputed; citations are all from POV sources. This forked sub-page should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV; in general, it is bad policy to use a /TEMP sub-page to make major page changes to an article. Nimur 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Travislangley 05:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid AFD:no WP:DP citedand clearly a content dispute per nom, thus an abuse of AFD.Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not merely a content-dispute. This is an attempt to use a sub-page to fork content. Such actions violate WP:POV_fork:
- A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.
- For this reason, this /Temp sub-page should be deleted. Contributors to /Temp should not attempt a total re-write, but should instead use the standard editing procedures. Furthermore, WP:POV_fork#Temporary_subpages states:
- New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace.
- Please accept these as valid WP:DP citations. This is not an "abuse of AfD." Thank you, Nimur 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for referencing valid policy reasons. In view of the above arguments, delete
and userfy(no userfy needed as talk copy made). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for referencing valid policy reasons. In view of the above arguments, delete
I am also a bit confused about the organization here. It seems that the creators of the /Temp pages duplicated the article twice - once as a sub-page, and once as a sub-page of the Talk namespace. Both of these appear to be content-forks:
Please consider this AfD as a nomination for the deletion of both, since they are equivalent. Nimur 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now that the Talk: page is an attempt to "talkify" the page, as per the policy. User:Francis_Schonken copied to the Talk space in anticipation of a deletion. Sorry for my earlier confusion. Nimur 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I created the page earlier. I never attended to make it a POV fork. I just wanted to make a working ground for editors to completly rewrite an awful article. If it is against policies, I'll just move the work to my user page. CG 10:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copied to Talk: space. JPD (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2006 (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.