 | Points of interest related to
Arkansas on Wikipedia: Outline – Index – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arkansas. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arkansas|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arkansas.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Alexandru Sorin Biris
- Alexandru Sorin Biris ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte ( talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. There is a GoogleScholar
profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with
h-index 66 and
i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in
ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced.
Turgidson (
talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for
WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with
WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified.
Kannarpady, the
WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal.
[1]
[2]
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson ( talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal.
[1]
[2]
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for
WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with
WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified.
Kannarpady, the
WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady ( talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
2023 Little Rock tornado
- 2023 Little Rock tornado ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was not at all ready for mainspace and it currently fails WP:LASTING. Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023. This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes). In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes). To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes. The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS. Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now. As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary.
Chess
Eric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a
TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet
WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though.
Chess
Eric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference
this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The
SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create
User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric. Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado. The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations. The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur. So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability. This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference
this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The
SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create
User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet
WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though.
Chess
Eric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a
TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023. We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article. In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles. Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section. The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed. But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact. A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak. 148.76.84.29 ( talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)(Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations. 148.76.84.29 ( talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)(Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here. You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space. Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow. His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point. 99.196.129.143 ( talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)( SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks. I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any thoughts from more independent editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Arkansas proposed deletions ( PROD))
- Arkansas State University Paragould (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2023)
- Black River Technical College (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2023)
| Points of interest related to
Arkansas on Wikipedia: Outline – Index – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arkansas. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arkansas|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arkansas.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Alexandru Sorin Biris
- Alexandru Sorin Biris ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte ( talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. There is a GoogleScholar
profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with
h-index 66 and
i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in
ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced.
Turgidson (
talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for
WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with
WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified.
Kannarpady, the
WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal.
[1]
[2]
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson ( talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal.
[1]
[2]
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for
WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with
WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified.
Kannarpady, the
WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady ( talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
2023 Little Rock tornado
- 2023 Little Rock tornado ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was not at all ready for mainspace and it currently fails WP:LASTING. Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023. This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes). In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes). To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes. The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS. Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now. As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary.
Chess
Eric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a
TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet
WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though.
Chess
Eric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference
this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The
SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create
User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric. Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado. The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations. The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur. So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability. This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference
this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The
SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create
User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet
WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though.
Chess
Eric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a
TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023. We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article. In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles. Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section. The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed. But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact. A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak. 148.76.84.29 ( talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)(Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations. 148.76.84.29 ( talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)(Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here. You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space. Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow. His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point. 99.196.129.143 ( talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)( SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks. I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any thoughts from more independent editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Arkansas proposed deletions ( PROD))
- Arkansas State University Paragould (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2023)
- Black River Technical College (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2023)