| Revision as of 05:06, 25 December 2012 editDoncram (talk | contribs)203,830 edits →List of Scheduled Castes: just stop, please← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:11, 25 December 2012 edit undoDoncram (talk | contribs)203,830 edits →List of Scheduled Castes: userfication is an essayNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| This is a '''request for ]''', not deletion. This article was included in ], but neither the discussants nor the closing administrator paid attention to it (this has been acknowledged on the closing administrator's talk page). Reason is that the topic of caste is highly contentious; that issues related to nomenclature, politics, the potential for ambiguity due to nuances of spelling and transliteration, and other factors make it necessary to exercise more than the usual level of care to assure verifiability and avoid serious errors in discussing topics related to caste; and that this list is seriously incomplete (in content, sourcing, and context) in its present form. It should be moved out of article space until it is (1) reasonably complete and (2) properly verified through reliable sources. Lists like this one need to provide the kind of context that commenters familiar with South Asia seemed to indicate to be necessary. These issues probably can be cured, but it is misleading for the list to be in article space in its current form. ] (]) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC) | This is a '''request for ]''', not deletion. This article was included in ], but neither the discussants nor the closing administrator paid attention to it (this has been acknowledged on the closing administrator's talk page). Reason is that the topic of caste is highly contentious; that issues related to nomenclature, politics, the potential for ambiguity due to nuances of spelling and transliteration, and other factors make it necessary to exercise more than the usual level of care to assure verifiability and avoid serious errors in discussing topics related to caste; and that this list is seriously incomplete (in content, sourcing, and context) in its present form. It should be moved out of article space until it is (1) reasonably complete and (2) properly verified through reliable sources. Lists like this one need to provide the kind of context that commenters familiar with South Asia seemed to indicate to be necessary. These issues probably can be cured, but it is misleading for the list to be in article space in its current form. ] (]) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::The linked ] is an essay that has no bearing. This is an AFD nomination for deletion to some un-named place, let's be clear, and surely Orlady would seek to dispute any return of a "userfied" article coming back to mainspace. If this was userfied to my space, I would be inclined to return it to mainspace immediately, as it is an obviously valid, completely sourced article. The previous AFD with KEEP decision is the ruling, already. STOP. --]]] 05:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 05:11, 25 December 2012
List of Scheduled Castes
- Second nomination. The prior nomination: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes
- List of Scheduled Castes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- This AFD is disputed as an invalid new AFD about a topic just KEPT in previous AFD. The process to dispute a closed AFD is Deletion Review. All parties here know the topic is valid as a Misplaced Pages article topic, too. I have requested this to be closed by an uninvolved admin.
- Basically, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if you wish to dispute the AFD close (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes). The nominator of this AFD doesn't like the decision of the previous multi-article AFD and disputes that the decision was Keep on both articles. The previous AFD was clearly about 2 articles, which was emphasized by the deletion nominator during the AFD. The closing statement was exactly: "The result was keep. Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted." If you dispute the close, seek to re-open the just concluded AFD, or take it to Deletion Review to dispute the close, which also would perhaps reopen the AFD or would lead to a 2nd AFD. It is a waste of editors time to consider the same AFD from scratch. There is nothing different about the second of two articles in the multi-AFD, which is why few said anything different about the two articles. --doncram 04:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a request for userfication, not deletion. This article was included in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes, but neither the discussants nor the closing administrator paid attention to it (this has been acknowledged on the closing administrator's talk page). Reason is that the topic of caste is highly contentious; that issues related to nomenclature, politics, the potential for ambiguity due to nuances of spelling and transliteration, and other factors make it necessary to exercise more than the usual level of care to assure verifiability and avoid serious errors in discussing topics related to caste; and that this list is seriously incomplete (in content, sourcing, and context) in its present form. It should be moved out of article space until it is (1) reasonably complete and (2) properly verified through reliable sources. Lists like this one need to provide the kind of context that commenters familiar with South Asia seemed to indicate to be necessary. These issues probably can be cured, but it is misleading for the list to be in article space in its current form. Orlady (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The linked wp:userfication is an essay that has no bearing. This is an AFD nomination for deletion to some un-named place, let's be clear, and surely Orlady would seek to dispute any return of a "userfied" article coming back to mainspace. If this was userfied to my space, I would be inclined to return it to mainspace immediately, as it is an obviously valid, completely sourced article. The previous AFD with KEEP decision is the ruling, already. STOP. --doncram 05:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Userfy: Per nom and the previous discussion mentioned above. הסרפד (Hasirpad) 20:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- To Hasirpad, do you understand that "Userfy" = "Delete"? Please see the previous AFD. The only valid reasons to remove a page are the reasons for deletion. And you are bumping into a long-running acrimonious situation, where editor Orlady is following and contending and nominating-for-deletion articles that I have created. Sorry that this has been opened. --doncram 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. The deletion nominator should be censored for this bad deletion nomination. The article just survived, with Keep decision, a joint AFD opened by same nominator. Nominator's suggested reasons for deletion/userfication have been thoroughly discussed, deemed invalid by enough consensus. Upon previous AFD closure, nominator presses at closing administrator's Talk page, and is advised there to leave it alone at least for a few weeks. Please, Orlady, drop it. --doncram 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- As noted, the previous discussion was created (by me) as a multiple-article nomination, but discussants addressed their comments solely to the article named in the nomination title, ignoring or overlooking the inclusion of this article. Even the administrator who closed that AfD as "keep" failed to notice that this article was included in it, as indicated in discussion on that administrator's talk page. I opened this AfD after consulting with the closing administrator. The advice to wait at least a couple of weeks was not related to restarting the AfD, but rather was in response to my question about how long it would be reasonable to wait for the promised improvements to List of Other Backward Classes, about which the administrator's closure statement said "Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted." --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The previous AFD included a very clear statement by Orlady that it was about two articles, and it included explicit comment by Yogesh about "...the lists (per Doncram) will be based on government lists...", and it included explicit comment by Orlady within Keep vote by Mdkw, "Please note: This is not actually a request to delete these articles. It is a request to move them out of article space....". And there were one or more edit summaries by Orlady calling attention to it being about 2 articles. I for one certainly was 100% aware that Orlady sought to remove two articles. If Orlady feels that Talk at the closer's Talk page is evidence of incompetence or whatever in the close, then Deletion Review is the venue. If the original AFD is re-opened, all the previous comments should be considered, not ignored by a bad close.
- As noted, the previous discussion was created (by me) as a multiple-article nomination, but discussants addressed their comments solely to the article named in the nomination title, ignoring or overlooking the inclusion of this article. Even the administrator who closed that AfD as "keep" failed to notice that this article was included in it, as indicated in discussion on that administrator's talk page. I opened this AfD after consulting with the closing administrator. The advice to wait at least a couple of weeks was not related to restarting the AfD, but rather was in response to my question about how long it would be reasonable to wait for the promised improvements to List of Other Backward Classes, about which the administrator's closure statement said "Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted." --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- There simply is little if anything for anyone to say different about the second of two similar articles formed from government sources. There is no sourcing issue present. Greglocock states: "Invalid nomination. Poor or incomplete content is NOT a reason for AFD. How do you think we built this fucking thing if it wasn't by starting from poor quality articles? Grow up the lot of you....You have a content dispute which should be resolved on the Talk page, and you have a bad AfD nomination which should be withdrawn." That applies to the whole nomination of both articles, clearly. My take is that Orlady simply "doesn't like" it and is highly invested. Give it up. Stop following. Just stop, please. --doncram 05:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)