The result was keep. Consensus seems fairly clear. if there is a problem with its status as a content fork, that is something which should first be addressed through editing and then through deletion. Ironholds ( talk) 12:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Edit: Redirect to main article following discussion. Nageh ( talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Extended content
|
---|
Challenging material does NOT mean that you should delete everything from an article down to its bones and then bring it to AfD. In fact, WP:V says that material must be verifiable, which does not imply that it must be verified. This is not an WP:BLP article, and the behavior of User:PPdd is exactly the reason why real contributors (those adding content) get pissed off from Wikipedia. Yes, not sourcing something is not good behavior based on our policies and guidelines, but if you delete something you should have a reason for deletion. Also read WP:Responsible tagging, which tangents this issue. Nageh ( talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
* Proposed consensus compromise - The only argument to keep is that there is a potential for the article to not violate
WP:CONTENTFORK redundancy. The best argument to redirect so far is that it is now completely redundant, and has a very high potential to be a WP:CONTENTFORK violating base camp for POVpushers not satisfied with deletions of their POV and NRS content at
acupunture, especially as this has historically been the case. I suggest a compromise to avoid the latter. Keep the artricle up for its potenital not to violate WPCONTENTFORK "redundancy", but set controls for its potential refuge for WPCONTENTFORK POV and NRS abuse from those seeking to avoid deletions on those bases at
acupuncture. The control I propse setting is a FAQ at this articles talk page that this article is not to contain claims of efficacy, and if someonee wants to make such claims, they must do so at
acupuncture, which is about medical treatment, not points. It is very unlikely that a claim of efficacy related to any acupuncture point allowed in her, will not be allowed at
acupuncture. Otherwise, this article seems to be a good one to use as the basic example in the WP:CONTENTFORK guideline, that of an article that is completely redundant, and also of one that has been historically used to put in POV and NRS violating content.
PPdd (
talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Infeasable proposal per WAID comment at talk page
reply
The result was keep. Consensus seems fairly clear. if there is a problem with its status as a content fork, that is something which should first be addressed through editing and then through deletion. Ironholds ( talk) 12:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Edit: Redirect to main article following discussion. Nageh ( talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Extended content
|
---|
Challenging material does NOT mean that you should delete everything from an article down to its bones and then bring it to AfD. In fact, WP:V says that material must be verifiable, which does not imply that it must be verified. This is not an WP:BLP article, and the behavior of User:PPdd is exactly the reason why real contributors (those adding content) get pissed off from Wikipedia. Yes, not sourcing something is not good behavior based on our policies and guidelines, but if you delete something you should have a reason for deletion. Also read WP:Responsible tagging, which tangents this issue. Nageh ( talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
* Proposed consensus compromise - The only argument to keep is that there is a potential for the article to not violate
WP:CONTENTFORK redundancy. The best argument to redirect so far is that it is now completely redundant, and has a very high potential to be a WP:CONTENTFORK violating base camp for POVpushers not satisfied with deletions of their POV and NRS content at
acupunture, especially as this has historically been the case. I suggest a compromise to avoid the latter. Keep the artricle up for its potenital not to violate WPCONTENTFORK "redundancy", but set controls for its potential refuge for WPCONTENTFORK POV and NRS abuse from those seeking to avoid deletions on those bases at
acupuncture. The control I propse setting is a FAQ at this articles talk page that this article is not to contain claims of efficacy, and if someonee wants to make such claims, they must do so at
acupuncture, which is about medical treatment, not points. It is very unlikely that a claim of efficacy related to any acupuncture point allowed in her, will not be allowed at
acupuncture. Otherwise, this article seems to be a good one to use as the basic example in the WP:CONTENTFORK guideline, that of an article that is completely redundant, and also of one that has been historically used to put in POV and NRS violating content.
PPdd (
talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Infeasable proposal per WAID comment at talk page
reply