- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: moot. Given that the article have been published into mainspace, the entirety of this discussion is off topic now. Congrats on the new article though. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Draft:165th Air Support Operations Squadron
Being a member of the TACP career field is a challenging, rewarding, and exciting task. If you think you have what it takes and are interested in finding out more information, contact a Georgia Air National Guard recruiting office or contact the 165 ASOS Recruiting Team directly by email: 165asostacp@gmail.com or phone: (912)547-2527. - This is unequivocal advertising in a WP article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 00:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment An AFC reviewer has now accepted this article (the same reviewer who most recently declined it). This has inevitably meant moving it from draft space to main space. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion warns that "moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion" and so asks that the move should be noted at both the top and the bottom of the discussion. The text of the {{ mfd}} tag gives different advice but I think the Guide is to be preferred. Thincat ( talk) 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete - Marginal as to whether WP:G11 applies, but at least delete. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have struck my !vote below after Primefac explained to me about the workings of AFC (an area I keep completely clear of for reviewing and article creation!). I wondered whether to remove it because it makes unfair criticism of your actions but in the end I decided merely to strike it but make particular apologies to you. Thincat ( talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
*Keep Very recently created
articleuser space draft by two inexperienced editors who may very well not understand WP principles. The draft is not gross and could be developed into something suitable. It was moved from user space by a third party with the rationale "Preferred location for AfC submissions" but it was not an AFC submission, then a fourth party tagged with MFD. Then, so far as I can see, it was submitted to AFC and simultaneously declined by a fifth party. Neither article editor has edited at all since the MFD. AFC is not compulsory. In my view this sequence of reactions to the userspace draft has been quite appalling. (That's the end of my stint on today's MFDs).
Thincat (
talk) 15:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I now see a single editor did the MFD submission, then the AFC submission, then the AFC decline. So my criticisms of the "curators" were spread too widely. However, I don't think editors should move to draft space userspace drafts they think should be deleted in draft space (which is evidenced here) so I keep an element of criticism there also. This is a very bad way to be curating new drafts. Thincat ( talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)-
Thincat, if you look at the
last version of the page before
Robert McClenon moved it to the Draft space, you'll find the AFC submission box at the very bottom. This is how drafts are submitted using the "submit your draft for review" link provided on {{
AFC submission/draft}} and {{
user sandbox}}. So while your rationale for keeping (i.e. "the content isn't grossly promotional") is valid, your summary of the timeline is very inaccurate.
Primefac (
talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help and advice. I'm making tea now so I'll apologise to Robert and rewrite my !vote when I have time. (It'll still be keep, though!). Thincat ( talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Thincat, if you look at the
last version of the page before
Robert McClenon moved it to the Draft space, you'll find the AFC submission box at the very bottom. This is how drafts are submitted using the "submit your draft for review" link provided on {{
AFC submission/draft}} and {{
user sandbox}}. So while your rationale for keeping (i.e. "the content isn't grossly promotional") is valid, your summary of the timeline is very inaccurate.
Primefac (
talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm on the fence about whether this squadron would be considered notable. However, nominating it for deletion on its rather promotional tone is completely out of line. I've removed a good amount of promotional and/or unnecessary material from the draft, and while there is still plenty of promotional language (mainly of the FLOWERY variety) it's definitely not G11-worthy. Robert McClenon, if the offending language were removed, what would be your !vote as to its suitability for Wikipedia? Primefac ( talk) 16:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The "advertising" can be removed (Primefac has now partially done this) so the MFD was inappropriate and the draft should be kept. The draft was sent to MFD immediately after AFC submission before the article creators (who are inexperienced editors) had a chance to receive any review advice at all or to remedy the draft. With a non-abusive draft such as this that is also a reason not to delete. The AFC decline was indeed appropriate at that stage (but proper advice should have been given). Primefac raises a question about notability and I agree that at AFD some people would !vote delete. I think deletion would actually be very unlikely (a merge or redirect would have been considered before delete) and so (after discussion with the creators) the article should have been given an opportunity in main space but it would then possibly face an AFD. Even if the squadron is not notable at least some of the material could be merged at 165th Airlift Wing (linked from there I see a sister squadron 158th Airlift Squadron existing with no apparent problem). So, another reason not to delete. Thincat ( talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep In line with Thincat's opinion, I think we should at the very least give the creators an opportunity to demonstrate notability. The original MFD/decline reason is BITEy and unnecessary, and generally drafts aren't MFD'd until they've been re-re-re-(etc)-submitted with no good article in sight. I hesitate to mention that white stuff falling out of the sky, but I do invite Tseung Kwan O to withdraw their nom. Primefac ( talk) 18:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I see no white stuff here in the Northern Hemisphere. In New Zealand, I wouldn't be surprised. However, I struck my Delete. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The tone issue is fixable, and AFC is where to fix it. This isn't WP:G11, and I agree with User:Primefac that MFD in AFC is only for drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted. I have nominated some drafts for MFD, and this isn't one of them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment An AFC reviewer has now accepted this article (the same reviewer who most recently declined it). This has inevitably meant moving it from draft space to main space. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion warns that "moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion" and so asks that the move should be noted at both the top and the bottom of the discussion. The text of the {{ mfd}} tag gives different advice but I think the Guide is to be preferred. Thincat ( talk) 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest this discussion is closed early ( WP:SPEEDYCLOSE) since it is has become moot and was anyway started by an abusive nomination. If anyone wants to take further action over the article it is highly preferable they should edit it but if they consider it irretrievably unsatisfactory then WP:AFD is now the appropriate venue. Thincat ( talk) 05:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you all for your assistance and I appreciate your patience - I have never created an article on Wikipedia before, but it was a useful learning experience. Additionally, thank you for taking up for me and this article after it was nominated for deletion. I was disappointed it was nominated for deletion so quickly without giving me any opportunity to remedy the issues. I hope it is satisfactory now, and I see the page has been moved from drafts to the main space. However, I do see the page says it is still being considered for deletion. There is no discussion on the page's main space "miscellany for deletion" page, so I thought I would mention it here. Would it be in my best interest to write something in that space in defense of my article? Or is this a process that will take some time to have that message removed from the page? Thank you again,
Whopkins11 (
talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm relieved you have maintained your composure throughout all this. This is still the place where you should put any remarks in defence of this article because this discussion is still formally open. However, at present it looks to me highly likely that it will be closed as "keep" or merely closed as moot. In principle someone could return the article to be a draft. When this discussion has been closed you might have to defend the article further but that would be an entirely different matter and a different notice would appear on the page. Whatever you do don't remove the deletion notice presently on the article even though its links are wrong. There is no need to do anything at all at the non-existent discussion it points to. By the way, this MFD has been a learning experience for me as well (I have learned from a bad mistake I made) and I have been here
10 years(12 years, I lost count). Best wishes! Thincat ( talk) 15:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm relieved you have maintained your composure throughout all this. This is still the place where you should put any remarks in defence of this article because this discussion is still formally open. However, at present it looks to me highly likely that it will be closed as "keep" or merely closed as moot. In principle someone could return the article to be a draft. When this discussion has been closed you might have to defend the article further but that would be an entirely different matter and a different notice would appear on the page. Whatever you do don't remove the deletion notice presently on the article even though its links are wrong. There is no need to do anything at all at the non-existent discussion it points to. By the way, this MFD has been a learning experience for me as well (I have learned from a bad mistake I made) and I have been here
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: moot. Given that the article have been published into mainspace, the entirety of this discussion is off topic now. Congrats on the new article though. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Draft:165th Air Support Operations Squadron
Being a member of the TACP career field is a challenging, rewarding, and exciting task. If you think you have what it takes and are interested in finding out more information, contact a Georgia Air National Guard recruiting office or contact the 165 ASOS Recruiting Team directly by email: 165asostacp@gmail.com or phone: (912)547-2527. - This is unequivocal advertising in a WP article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 00:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment An AFC reviewer has now accepted this article (the same reviewer who most recently declined it). This has inevitably meant moving it from draft space to main space. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion warns that "moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion" and so asks that the move should be noted at both the top and the bottom of the discussion. The text of the {{ mfd}} tag gives different advice but I think the Guide is to be preferred. Thincat ( talk) 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete - Marginal as to whether WP:G11 applies, but at least delete. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have struck my !vote below after Primefac explained to me about the workings of AFC (an area I keep completely clear of for reviewing and article creation!). I wondered whether to remove it because it makes unfair criticism of your actions but in the end I decided merely to strike it but make particular apologies to you. Thincat ( talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
*Keep Very recently created
articleuser space draft by two inexperienced editors who may very well not understand WP principles. The draft is not gross and could be developed into something suitable. It was moved from user space by a third party with the rationale "Preferred location for AfC submissions" but it was not an AFC submission, then a fourth party tagged with MFD. Then, so far as I can see, it was submitted to AFC and simultaneously declined by a fifth party. Neither article editor has edited at all since the MFD. AFC is not compulsory. In my view this sequence of reactions to the userspace draft has been quite appalling. (That's the end of my stint on today's MFDs).
Thincat (
talk) 15:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I now see a single editor did the MFD submission, then the AFC submission, then the AFC decline. So my criticisms of the "curators" were spread too widely. However, I don't think editors should move to draft space userspace drafts they think should be deleted in draft space (which is evidenced here) so I keep an element of criticism there also. This is a very bad way to be curating new drafts. Thincat ( talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)-
Thincat, if you look at the
last version of the page before
Robert McClenon moved it to the Draft space, you'll find the AFC submission box at the very bottom. This is how drafts are submitted using the "submit your draft for review" link provided on {{
AFC submission/draft}} and {{
user sandbox}}. So while your rationale for keeping (i.e. "the content isn't grossly promotional") is valid, your summary of the timeline is very inaccurate.
Primefac (
talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help and advice. I'm making tea now so I'll apologise to Robert and rewrite my !vote when I have time. (It'll still be keep, though!). Thincat ( talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Thincat, if you look at the
last version of the page before
Robert McClenon moved it to the Draft space, you'll find the AFC submission box at the very bottom. This is how drafts are submitted using the "submit your draft for review" link provided on {{
AFC submission/draft}} and {{
user sandbox}}. So while your rationale for keeping (i.e. "the content isn't grossly promotional") is valid, your summary of the timeline is very inaccurate.
Primefac (
talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm on the fence about whether this squadron would be considered notable. However, nominating it for deletion on its rather promotional tone is completely out of line. I've removed a good amount of promotional and/or unnecessary material from the draft, and while there is still plenty of promotional language (mainly of the FLOWERY variety) it's definitely not G11-worthy. Robert McClenon, if the offending language were removed, what would be your !vote as to its suitability for Wikipedia? Primefac ( talk) 16:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The "advertising" can be removed (Primefac has now partially done this) so the MFD was inappropriate and the draft should be kept. The draft was sent to MFD immediately after AFC submission before the article creators (who are inexperienced editors) had a chance to receive any review advice at all or to remedy the draft. With a non-abusive draft such as this that is also a reason not to delete. The AFC decline was indeed appropriate at that stage (but proper advice should have been given). Primefac raises a question about notability and I agree that at AFD some people would !vote delete. I think deletion would actually be very unlikely (a merge or redirect would have been considered before delete) and so (after discussion with the creators) the article should have been given an opportunity in main space but it would then possibly face an AFD. Even if the squadron is not notable at least some of the material could be merged at 165th Airlift Wing (linked from there I see a sister squadron 158th Airlift Squadron existing with no apparent problem). So, another reason not to delete. Thincat ( talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep In line with Thincat's opinion, I think we should at the very least give the creators an opportunity to demonstrate notability. The original MFD/decline reason is BITEy and unnecessary, and generally drafts aren't MFD'd until they've been re-re-re-(etc)-submitted with no good article in sight. I hesitate to mention that white stuff falling out of the sky, but I do invite Tseung Kwan O to withdraw their nom. Primefac ( talk) 18:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I see no white stuff here in the Northern Hemisphere. In New Zealand, I wouldn't be surprised. However, I struck my Delete. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The tone issue is fixable, and AFC is where to fix it. This isn't WP:G11, and I agree with User:Primefac that MFD in AFC is only for drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted. I have nominated some drafts for MFD, and this isn't one of them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment An AFC reviewer has now accepted this article (the same reviewer who most recently declined it). This has inevitably meant moving it from draft space to main space. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion warns that "moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion" and so asks that the move should be noted at both the top and the bottom of the discussion. The text of the {{ mfd}} tag gives different advice but I think the Guide is to be preferred. Thincat ( talk) 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest this discussion is closed early ( WP:SPEEDYCLOSE) since it is has become moot and was anyway started by an abusive nomination. If anyone wants to take further action over the article it is highly preferable they should edit it but if they consider it irretrievably unsatisfactory then WP:AFD is now the appropriate venue. Thincat ( talk) 05:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you all for your assistance and I appreciate your patience - I have never created an article on Wikipedia before, but it was a useful learning experience. Additionally, thank you for taking up for me and this article after it was nominated for deletion. I was disappointed it was nominated for deletion so quickly without giving me any opportunity to remedy the issues. I hope it is satisfactory now, and I see the page has been moved from drafts to the main space. However, I do see the page says it is still being considered for deletion. There is no discussion on the page's main space "miscellany for deletion" page, so I thought I would mention it here. Would it be in my best interest to write something in that space in defense of my article? Or is this a process that will take some time to have that message removed from the page? Thank you again,
Whopkins11 (
talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm relieved you have maintained your composure throughout all this. This is still the place where you should put any remarks in defence of this article because this discussion is still formally open. However, at present it looks to me highly likely that it will be closed as "keep" or merely closed as moot. In principle someone could return the article to be a draft. When this discussion has been closed you might have to defend the article further but that would be an entirely different matter and a different notice would appear on the page. Whatever you do don't remove the deletion notice presently on the article even though its links are wrong. There is no need to do anything at all at the non-existent discussion it points to. By the way, this MFD has been a learning experience for me as well (I have learned from a bad mistake I made) and I have been here
10 years(12 years, I lost count). Best wishes! Thincat ( talk) 15:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm relieved you have maintained your composure throughout all this. This is still the place where you should put any remarks in defence of this article because this discussion is still formally open. However, at present it looks to me highly likely that it will be closed as "keep" or merely closed as moot. In principle someone could return the article to be a draft. When this discussion has been closed you might have to defend the article further but that would be an entirely different matter and a different notice would appear on the page. Whatever you do don't remove the deletion notice presently on the article even though its links are wrong. There is no need to do anything at all at the non-existent discussion it points to. By the way, this MFD has been a learning experience for me as well (I have learned from a bad mistake I made) and I have been here
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.