- 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 debate was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Chiism(Godianism)
Not a portal. It just might pass muster as a stub article on the topic if the content were heavily trimmed and edited to remove OR/Essay, POV, first person remarks, and religious proselytizing. Michael Devore ( talk) 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - There is a page in some foreign language wiki on this subject, here, but this is not a good portal. I'm guessing the subject is notable enough. I'm storing a version of the page in my userspace and will try to edit it down to acceptable standards. I'm not the creator, by the way, but that party might still respond later. John Carter ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly Delete as portal; I'm dubious it is salvageable as an article; a very new religion, with clear COI issues. See ghits. Johnbod ( talk) 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - it should instead be an article, but this one would need to be rewritten anyway. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - It doesn't make much sense as a portal, but as an article, it can be re-written and fixed ..-- Comet styles 06:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep everything that's nominated for MfD. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you mean that you recommend keeping the content as a separate article, as it fails the most basic definitions and structure of a portal, irrespective of and wholly separate from inclusionist philosophy concerns. (I am aware of your public campaign on radical inclusionism, of course.) --
Michael Devore (
talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, after it's kept, it can be moved to a different namespace or whatever the heck anyone wants to do with it. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you mean that you recommend keeping the content as a separate article, as it fails the most basic definitions and structure of a portal, irrespective of and wholly separate from inclusionist philosophy concerns. (I am aware of your public campaign on radical inclusionism, of course.) --
Michael Devore (
talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
*Keep on principle: this should not have been MfD'd. It should have been PROD'd, or simply userfied. Userfy I also favor, with Mbstpo, pure wiki deletion, which leaves all lawful content available. What should be done with this is probably to userfy it. That way, it's still in the user's contributions if this user comes back looking for it. So if it shouldn't be a portal, fine. Move it. Don't MfD it. I think that is Mbstpo's point.--
Abd (
talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article creation is good, but this text should be kept in case that user returns; the user may have assertions there that could be sourced, that may have been intended to be sourced later. Had it been created in user space, it would have been left alone, so, it seems the best response would be to do what could have been done without any MfD, by an editor who saw it. Move it to the users space. -- Abd ( talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a terribly useful suggestion to keep the content. A successful PROD would make the content go away, not move it. To the contrary of your assertion, MfD is exactly the place for removing a portal. The ensuing community discussion allows maximum flexibility for shaping final resolution of content (something one does not enjoy with single-admin PRODs). Nor is there a standard community process for userfication.
- I know you have been active in defending Obuibo Mbstpo's recent behavior at various Wikipedia pages, but I think it unnecessary here. He has made his intent clear in his follow-up remark, and I'm sure his recommendation will be given all due weight upon MfD closure. Given your concerns, as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron perhaps you could find time to edit the content into a viable stand-alone article, and allow the MfD to be closed in a manner that we all would support: as a good article and not as a bad portal. --
Michael Devore (
talk) 00:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was unaware that PROD did not apply to Portal space when I wrote the above. It's possible it should. I dislike deleting the content, clearly put together by a user with some effort, without the user having an opportunity to save it. Deletion is, to me, a radical response, rarely worth the effort. I have a concern for efficiency, efficiency is necessary if the project is to continue to function as the scale increases. Deletion is generally inefficient, overall, but, if something is going to be deleted, it's counterproductive to argue about it, if it's avoidable. MfD is a cumbersome process for deletion. PROD is much simpler. Essentially, to keep an article under PROD takes at least one editor standing up for it. PROD is an equivalent to the chair of a meeting announcing "Without objection...." which is normally highly efficient. However, less harsh is blank and redirect, or userification. The user who created the subject article registered and did nothing else. -- Abd ( talk) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I copied the file to the user space of the creator, and I'll place a note on the Talk page. Given that, I'm going to delete my Keep !vote. Would have been simpler to just move the file, which I've seen done a lot, but .... done is done.-- Abd ( talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know you have been active in defending Obuibo Mbstpo's recent behavior at various Wikipedia pages, but I think it unnecessary here. He has made his intent clear in his follow-up remark, and I'm sure his recommendation will be given all due weight upon MfD closure. Given your concerns, as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron perhaps you could find time to edit the content into a viable stand-alone article, and allow the MfD to be closed in a manner that we all would support: as a good article and not as a bad portal. --
Michael Devore (
talk) 00:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone is willing to rewrite this to be an article and add some sources to avoid WP:OR. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
*This is all F'd up now - Whatever we do, and I think it should be Speedy Delete
WP:CSD#P2 we now have to fix the GFDL violation created by Abd's copy and paste which now attributes the entire work to Abd - Abd, please stop - now!--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs) 05:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete failing complete rewrite. -- Fredrick day 09:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - verifiable information from the cited source in the foreign language wikipedia article has now been used to create the article Godianism. John Carter ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Seems like the new article stub in mainspace on the topic should satisfy all sides and allow the portal to be deleted as a speedy, per the above CSD P2 remark? -- Michael Devore ( talk) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- N.B. - either delete both the portal and User:Onyioha/Chiism(Godianism) or copy over (i.e. delete the latter and replace with the former) - as without the Portal the user subpage fails to comply with GFDL. Personally, I support deleting both.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made a little bit more of a mess, but not much. I moved the file to my user space and blanked the reference to it in that User's talk. I didn't realize, actually, that a Move automatically creates a redirect. Or is that an option? Anyway, I haven't moved many files, and the redirect was created.... Because I'm listed in both files as author, I tagged them for speedy deletion as the sole author, both the redirect and the file in my user space. So that part should be fixed in short order. I would go ahead and Move the Portal file to the user's space, but until the redirect is fixed, I'd have to change the name. So, for now at least, I'll leave it alone, asking that the result of this MfD be to userfy the page, which by that time should be very simple. Live and learn.--
Abd (
talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yuck - I thought you were just going to tag the copy where it lay. So the GFDL violating copy now resides at User:Abd/Chiism(Godianism). But it's tagged for Speedy G7 so as long as it gets deleted there is no problem now (the redirect is automatic Abd, but an automatically generated one doesn't carry any history - which is why it shows you as the creator - so it doesn't matter, though it will soon be useless). As for the pseudo-Portal, I don't have any big objection to userfying it - the right way! If someone is actually going to use it.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made a little bit more of a mess, but not much. I moved the file to my user space and blanked the reference to it in that User's talk. I didn't realize, actually, that a Move automatically creates a redirect. Or is that an option? Anyway, I haven't moved many files, and the redirect was created.... Because I'm listed in both files as author, I tagged them for speedy deletion as the sole author, both the redirect and the file in my user space. So that part should be fixed in short order. I would go ahead and Move the Portal file to the user's space, but until the redirect is fixed, I'd have to change the name. So, for now at least, I'll leave it alone, asking that the result of this MfD be to userfy the page, which by that time should be very simple. Live and learn.--
Abd (
talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have emailed the author of the page, notifying him of the MfD. I continue to propose that the page be userfied, as some others have agreed would be acceptable; I did, however, also notify the author how to proceed if the page is deleted. Userfying it is simpler, because no further admin attention would be needed.-- Abd ( talk) 15:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Content would still remain almost unsalvagably POV. Suggest deletion is the best course. It is all but impossible for me to imagine that there are reliable sources making the statements contained in the portal, which leads me to think that the best course remains outright deletion, with the option of expanding the extant article in the future. John Carter ( talk) 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Chiism(Godianism)
Not a portal. It just might pass muster as a stub article on the topic if the content were heavily trimmed and edited to remove OR/Essay, POV, first person remarks, and religious proselytizing. Michael Devore ( talk) 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - There is a page in some foreign language wiki on this subject, here, but this is not a good portal. I'm guessing the subject is notable enough. I'm storing a version of the page in my userspace and will try to edit it down to acceptable standards. I'm not the creator, by the way, but that party might still respond later. John Carter ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly Delete as portal; I'm dubious it is salvageable as an article; a very new religion, with clear COI issues. See ghits. Johnbod ( talk) 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - it should instead be an article, but this one would need to be rewritten anyway. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - It doesn't make much sense as a portal, but as an article, it can be re-written and fixed ..-- Comet styles 06:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep everything that's nominated for MfD. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you mean that you recommend keeping the content as a separate article, as it fails the most basic definitions and structure of a portal, irrespective of and wholly separate from inclusionist philosophy concerns. (I am aware of your public campaign on radical inclusionism, of course.) --
Michael Devore (
talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, after it's kept, it can be moved to a different namespace or whatever the heck anyone wants to do with it. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you mean that you recommend keeping the content as a separate article, as it fails the most basic definitions and structure of a portal, irrespective of and wholly separate from inclusionist philosophy concerns. (I am aware of your public campaign on radical inclusionism, of course.) --
Michael Devore (
talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
*Keep on principle: this should not have been MfD'd. It should have been PROD'd, or simply userfied. Userfy I also favor, with Mbstpo, pure wiki deletion, which leaves all lawful content available. What should be done with this is probably to userfy it. That way, it's still in the user's contributions if this user comes back looking for it. So if it shouldn't be a portal, fine. Move it. Don't MfD it. I think that is Mbstpo's point.--
Abd (
talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article creation is good, but this text should be kept in case that user returns; the user may have assertions there that could be sourced, that may have been intended to be sourced later. Had it been created in user space, it would have been left alone, so, it seems the best response would be to do what could have been done without any MfD, by an editor who saw it. Move it to the users space. -- Abd ( talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a terribly useful suggestion to keep the content. A successful PROD would make the content go away, not move it. To the contrary of your assertion, MfD is exactly the place for removing a portal. The ensuing community discussion allows maximum flexibility for shaping final resolution of content (something one does not enjoy with single-admin PRODs). Nor is there a standard community process for userfication.
- I know you have been active in defending Obuibo Mbstpo's recent behavior at various Wikipedia pages, but I think it unnecessary here. He has made his intent clear in his follow-up remark, and I'm sure his recommendation will be given all due weight upon MfD closure. Given your concerns, as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron perhaps you could find time to edit the content into a viable stand-alone article, and allow the MfD to be closed in a manner that we all would support: as a good article and not as a bad portal. --
Michael Devore (
talk) 00:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was unaware that PROD did not apply to Portal space when I wrote the above. It's possible it should. I dislike deleting the content, clearly put together by a user with some effort, without the user having an opportunity to save it. Deletion is, to me, a radical response, rarely worth the effort. I have a concern for efficiency, efficiency is necessary if the project is to continue to function as the scale increases. Deletion is generally inefficient, overall, but, if something is going to be deleted, it's counterproductive to argue about it, if it's avoidable. MfD is a cumbersome process for deletion. PROD is much simpler. Essentially, to keep an article under PROD takes at least one editor standing up for it. PROD is an equivalent to the chair of a meeting announcing "Without objection...." which is normally highly efficient. However, less harsh is blank and redirect, or userification. The user who created the subject article registered and did nothing else. -- Abd ( talk) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I copied the file to the user space of the creator, and I'll place a note on the Talk page. Given that, I'm going to delete my Keep !vote. Would have been simpler to just move the file, which I've seen done a lot, but .... done is done.-- Abd ( talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know you have been active in defending Obuibo Mbstpo's recent behavior at various Wikipedia pages, but I think it unnecessary here. He has made his intent clear in his follow-up remark, and I'm sure his recommendation will be given all due weight upon MfD closure. Given your concerns, as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron perhaps you could find time to edit the content into a viable stand-alone article, and allow the MfD to be closed in a manner that we all would support: as a good article and not as a bad portal. --
Michael Devore (
talk) 00:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone is willing to rewrite this to be an article and add some sources to avoid WP:OR. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
*This is all F'd up now - Whatever we do, and I think it should be Speedy Delete
WP:CSD#P2 we now have to fix the GFDL violation created by Abd's copy and paste which now attributes the entire work to Abd - Abd, please stop - now!--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs) 05:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete failing complete rewrite. -- Fredrick day 09:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - verifiable information from the cited source in the foreign language wikipedia article has now been used to create the article Godianism. John Carter ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Seems like the new article stub in mainspace on the topic should satisfy all sides and allow the portal to be deleted as a speedy, per the above CSD P2 remark? -- Michael Devore ( talk) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- N.B. - either delete both the portal and User:Onyioha/Chiism(Godianism) or copy over (i.e. delete the latter and replace with the former) - as without the Portal the user subpage fails to comply with GFDL. Personally, I support deleting both.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made a little bit more of a mess, but not much. I moved the file to my user space and blanked the reference to it in that User's talk. I didn't realize, actually, that a Move automatically creates a redirect. Or is that an option? Anyway, I haven't moved many files, and the redirect was created.... Because I'm listed in both files as author, I tagged them for speedy deletion as the sole author, both the redirect and the file in my user space. So that part should be fixed in short order. I would go ahead and Move the Portal file to the user's space, but until the redirect is fixed, I'd have to change the name. So, for now at least, I'll leave it alone, asking that the result of this MfD be to userfy the page, which by that time should be very simple. Live and learn.--
Abd (
talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yuck - I thought you were just going to tag the copy where it lay. So the GFDL violating copy now resides at User:Abd/Chiism(Godianism). But it's tagged for Speedy G7 so as long as it gets deleted there is no problem now (the redirect is automatic Abd, but an automatically generated one doesn't carry any history - which is why it shows you as the creator - so it doesn't matter, though it will soon be useless). As for the pseudo-Portal, I don't have any big objection to userfying it - the right way! If someone is actually going to use it.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made a little bit more of a mess, but not much. I moved the file to my user space and blanked the reference to it in that User's talk. I didn't realize, actually, that a Move automatically creates a redirect. Or is that an option? Anyway, I haven't moved many files, and the redirect was created.... Because I'm listed in both files as author, I tagged them for speedy deletion as the sole author, both the redirect and the file in my user space. So that part should be fixed in short order. I would go ahead and Move the Portal file to the user's space, but until the redirect is fixed, I'd have to change the name. So, for now at least, I'll leave it alone, asking that the result of this MfD be to userfy the page, which by that time should be very simple. Live and learn.--
Abd (
talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have emailed the author of the page, notifying him of the MfD. I continue to propose that the page be userfied, as some others have agreed would be acceptable; I did, however, also notify the author how to proceed if the page is deleted. Userfying it is simpler, because no further admin attention would be needed.-- Abd ( talk) 15:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Content would still remain almost unsalvagably POV. Suggest deletion is the best course. It is all but impossible for me to imagine that there are reliable sources making the statements contained in the portal, which leads me to think that the best course remains outright deletion, with the option of expanding the extant article in the future. John Carter ( talk) 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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.