Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Divehi Misplaced Pages: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:17, 29 October 2006 editGeschichte (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users130,154 editsm →[]: d← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:17, 28 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(17 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Delete''' even though it seems a bit like eating your own foot, it seems the consensus is there's no reason that it shouldn't have to pass the tests that we apply for inclusion of other sites. ]] 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
⚫ This article fails or violates at least one of the following: ], ], and ]. It only has 182 articles according to ]. Depending on how this goes, I will nominate other ] for deletion as well. Edit: This was also prodded and deprodded a few months ago.<span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}}
⚫ *'''Keep''' Sorry, but I can't agree with your reasoning. Misplaced Pages articles about other language Misplaced Pages spin-offs are both appropriate, useful, and not a violation of any of those policies. Certainly not of the spirit behind Misplaced Pages. Please check ]. Especially before proposing any further deletions. ] 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ This article fails or violates at least one of the following: ], ], and ]. It only has 182 articles according to ]. Depending on how this goes, I will nominate other ] for deletion as well. Edit: This was also prodded and deprodded a few months ago.<font color="Green">&mdash;</font>''']''' 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ ::'''Comment''' No independent sources in the article. If Misplaced Pages itself is the only possible source, then the subject is undeserving of an article. Seems like just an inappropriate self-reference to me. Is the article on ] not enough to satisfy any of our "articles about Misplaced Pages" needs? (Save for "offshoots" of the article on Misplaced Pages, like ].) Please prove to me how it passes WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. <span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Keep''' Sorry, but I can't agree with your reasoning. Misplaced Pages articles about other language Misplaced Pages spin-offs are both appropriate, useful, and not a violation of any of those policies. Certainly not of the spirit behind Misplaced Pages. Please check ]. Especially before proposing any further deletions. ] 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I would say that all of the information in this article is easily derivable from Misplaced Pages's own information content services, as well as Bi-lingual Wikipedians who contribute to both Wikipedias. (and we'll assume that there are sources for the language of the Maldives, if not, then you'd best object to that elsewhere). And the reason why the article on ] is not appropriate for this information is simply a matter of convenience. That article is large enough without trying to describe every language. Yes, this is a shorter one, but some of the others are not, and those have enough details that they should clearly be kept. Given that, I'd rather keep articles on all of the languages than none. And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others. It's clear to me that Misplaced Pages should document itself, and part of that documentation is information on the foreign language version. To do otherwise just seems strange to me. But then, I said as much in the Czech language discussion. You aren't offering anything new, in fact, you're repeating the same arguments given there. They aren't convincing. ] 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ ::'''Comment''' No independent sources in the article. If Misplaced Pages itself is the only possible source, then the subject is undeserving of an article. Seems like just an inappropriate self-reference to me. Is the article on ] not enough to satisfy any of our "articles about Misplaced Pages" needs? (Save for "offshoots" of the article on Misplaced Pages, like ].) Please prove to me how it passes WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. <font color="Green">&mdash;</font>''']''' 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I would say that all of the information in this article is easily derivable from Misplaced Pages's own information content services, as well as Bi-lingual Wikipedians who contribute to both Wikipedias. (and we'll assume that there are sources for the language of the Maldives, if not, then you'd best object to that elsewhere). And the reason why the article on ] is not appropriate for this information is simply a matter of convenience. That article is large enough without trying to describe every language. Yes, this is a shorter one, but some of the others are not, and those have enough details that they should clearly be kept. Given that, I'd rather keep articles on all of the languages than none. And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others. It's clear to me that Misplaced Pages should document itself, and part of that documentation is information on the foreign language version. To do otherwise just seems strange to me. But then, I said as much in the Czech language discussion. You aren't offering anything new, in fact, you're repeating the same arguments given there. They aren't convincing. ] 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC) ::I think I have a strong argument in that this article violates policies and fails notability guidelines. The "repetitiveness" of my arguments have nothing to do with their strength, and "they aren't convincing" is merely your opinion (which I respect). You said "And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others." What makes this article an exception? We can all of a sudden disregard policy and notability guidelines? I am very skeptical about your statements, which provide a weak argument at best in my opinion. <span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ :::Yes, we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. It's called common sense, and it's a valuable asset in making all decisions. Misplaced Pages should describe itself(Misplaced Pages is notable, for many reasons, but even if it wasn't, I'd say it would be important for the site to be able to describe itself). Misplaced Pages has foreign-language components(if you don't believe this is the case, I suggest you visit wikipedia.org). Since they clearly exist, they should also be described. Given the potential length of those articles, having seperate articles is probably the best way to do that. Can you come up with a good reason why having this article is a real and substantial problem? I can't. Can you come up with a better way to do things? I doubt it, but you're welcome to make suggestions as to other options. However, deletion is not one of them. It's not effective. If you've gotten any objections to the content, you can check it seperately, but please don't try AfD's for cleanup. Anyway, you can cite policies all you want, but if you'll check things like WEB, SELF, others, they have exceptions and clarifications that clearly show they aren't to be adhereded to like a bunch of mindless machines. ] 02:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think I have a strong argument in that this article violates policies and fails notability guidelines. The "repetitiveness" of my arguments have nothing to do with their strength, and "they aren't convincing" is merely your opinion (which I respect). You said "And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others." What makes this article an exception? We can all of a sudden disregard policy and notability guidelines? I am very skeptical about your statements, which provide a weak argument at best in my opinion. <font color="Green">&mdash;</font>''']''' 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::::''we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate''. I hope the closing admin will take comments like that into account when deciding on something like this. If we start ignoring ], then where does it stop? We might as well throw ] out the window. ]|] 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ :::Yes, we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. It's called common sense, and it's a valuable asset in making all decisions. Misplaced Pages should describe itself(Misplaced Pages is notable, for many reasons, but even if it wasn't, I'd say it would be important for the site to be able to describe itself). Misplaced Pages has foreign-language components(if you don't believe this is the case, I suggest you visit wikipedia.org). Since they clearly exist, they should also be described. Given the potential length of those articles, having seperate articles is probably the best way to do that. Can you come up with a good reason why having this article is a real and substantial problem? I can't. Can you come up with a better way to do things? I doubt it, but you're welcome to make suggestions as to other options. However, deletion is not one of them. It's not effective. If you've gotten any objections to the content, you can check it seperately, but please don't try AfD's for cleanup. Anyway, you can cite policies all you want, but if you'll check things like WEB, SELF, others, they have exceptions and clarifications that clearly show they aren't to be adhereded to like a bunch of mindless machines. ] 02:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::The first paragraph of ]: "Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to remain on Misplaced Pages. This is a necessary result of Misplaced Pages being a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. The terms 'importance' and 'significance' are also in use, and for practical purposes on Misplaced Pages they are similar." That is why this article is problematic. Also, if I could have come up with a better way to do things, then I would just do it. But, since I don't believe this article deserves to be on Misplaced Pages, and I want to get a consensus on whether it should be kept or not, I brought it here. By all means, if you convince me that this article should be kept, I'll change my mind. I want to see what the community thinks first. I want to get suggestions out of ''you'' guys :-) <span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, the very first part of Notability is: ''This page is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.'' . Note the not set in stone, common sense, occasional exception. This is clearly one of those. ] 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::''Clearly'' one of those? Well ''I'' don't think so. Take a look at the article again (]). It has been around for eight months, but it is grown to be no more than a five sentence stub. Without independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, I don't see this article growing at all. I don't even think this article has the ''potential'' to grow. An article about the smallest nook/cranny about Misplaced Pages shouldn't exist. The "occasional exceptions" would include the other "language Misplaced Pages" articles (that have ''thousands'' more articles than the Divehi Misplaced Pages) that I ''didn't'' put on AFD. <span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:::So, it's a slow growing encyclopedia, which is no surprise given the number of speakers. So what? It's a simple article, with nothing that needs extensive verification outside the wikipedia software. Believe it or not, it's quite possible to check the number of articles it has and you can verify the date . Other than that, the only other information refers to the language itself, which I assume you're not questioning. All in all, no big deal. Does this article need to grow? I suppose, but that would depend on Wikipedians who speak both languages being interested in informing us. I doubt it'll happen quickly, if at all, but so what? That's just a result of the idiosyncratic growth of Misplaced Pages, not an argument as to merit. As it stands though, what content is there right now is not a problem, no matter how much you try to make it out to be. This is not a mountain. It's not even a molehill. ] 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', sorry, self-references are not encyclopedia articles. ]|] 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', sorry, self-references are not encyclopedia articles. ]|] 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Sufficient notability from being a Wikimedia project ] 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Sufficient notability from being a Wikimedia project ] 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
**Not without ] which are not self-references. ]|] 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) **Not without ] which are not self-references. ]|] 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
***What statements do you believe need more reliable sources? ] 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) ***What statements do you believe need more reliable sources? ] 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
****Oh, I don't know, the very fact that the Misplaced Pages exists, since we cannot rely solely on the web site's own claims and the existence of the website itself as evidence that the thing actually exists. You might as well throw ] out the window. ]|] 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
*****Yes, because clearly there is some doubt that Misplaced Pages exists, and that there are foreign language versions of it. Do you not realize how absurd that is? ] 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
***** Without voting in the AfD, I just have to keep that quote for posterity. "... we cannot rely solely on the web site's own claims and the existence of the website itself as evidence that the thing actually exists." -- Zoe, 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC). The ultimate in anti-existentialism. It sounds like something that could be from ]. "I'm not dead, I'm telling you!" "Do you expect me to just take your word for that?" ] <sup>]</sup> 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
**BTW, if you're wondering about the statistics, I believe they may come from here **BTW, if you're wondering about the statistics, I believe they may come from here
***Yet again another self-reference, which is not an acceptable reference. ]|] 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Is your point to show how flawed and biased processes on Misplaced Pages are? I believe that's not exactly secret. ] 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Is your point to show how flawed and biased processes on Misplaced Pages are? I believe that's not exactly secret. ] 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::May I remind you that ] is intended as ''humor'' and should ''not'' be followed. Never do that again. My intention is not to "show how flawed and biased processes on Misplaced Pages are", but to get a consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. What exactly did you mean by your question anyway? <span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::A totally unacceptable response, Pavel, and I suggest you rethink your attitude. ]|] 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::Like I said, I came here to get community opinion, input, and ], not to be accused of bad faith. Not only were your comments unacceptable and offensive, but totally unproductive as well. Can you please defend your keep vote instead of bashing fellow Wikipedians? Seriously, is your point to show how ] Wikipedians are? (Of course, if you apologize, all will be forgiven and forgotten.) <span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 18:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I trust that this vote will not hold any weight towards the final decision on this case. <span style="color:Green;">&mdash;</span>''']''' 04:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', being a Misplaced Pages does not automatically notability make. This one is too small, and has almost no activity. ] 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', being a Misplaced Pages does not automatically notability make. This one is too small, and has almost no activity. ] 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' unless notable secondary sources can be found and quoted. Many Wikipedias have enough outside coverage and secondary sources to justify a carefully written Misplaced Pages article (including the English Misplaced Pages). This one does not, as far as I can tell. ] <sub>]</sub> 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete.''' I don't see why Wikimedia projects shouldn't be held to the same standards as any other websites. As such, this is a clear case of utterly failing ]: there are no reliable third-party sources showing that any notability criterion is met. The wikipedia itself, of course, is anything ''but'' a reliable third-party source. ] 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', individual Wikipedias have to pass the ] test same as any other website. No mainstream media coverage (unlike the English, German, French, etc. Wikipedias), no evidence of exceptional popularity. ] 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per outcome of ]. <strong>]</strong> ]/]/) 09:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 20:17, 28 January 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete even though it seems a bit like eating your own foot, it seems the consensus is there's no reason that it shouldn't have to pass the tests that we apply for inclusion of other sites. Yomangani 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Divehi Misplaced Pages

This article fails or violates at least one of the following: WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. It only has 182 articles according to meta:List of Wikipedias. Depending on how this goes, I will nominate other similar articles for deletion as well. Edit: This was also prodded and deprodded a few months ago.—EdGl 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment No independent sources in the article. If Misplaced Pages itself is the only possible source, then the subject is undeserving of an article. Seems like just an inappropriate self-reference to me. Is the article on Misplaced Pages not enough to satisfy any of our "articles about Misplaced Pages" needs? (Save for "offshoots" of the article on Misplaced Pages, like Misplaced Pages in popular culture.) Please prove to me how it passes WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. —EdGl 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that all of the information in this article is easily derivable from Misplaced Pages's own information content services, as well as Bi-lingual Wikipedians who contribute to both Wikipedias. (and we'll assume that there are sources for the language of the Maldives, if not, then you'd best object to that elsewhere). And the reason why the article on Misplaced Pages is not appropriate for this information is simply a matter of convenience. That article is large enough without trying to describe every language. Yes, this is a shorter one, but some of the others are not, and those have enough details that they should clearly be kept. Given that, I'd rather keep articles on all of the languages than none. And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others. It's clear to me that Misplaced Pages should document itself, and part of that documentation is information on the foreign language version. To do otherwise just seems strange to me. But then, I said as much in the Czech language discussion. You aren't offering anything new, in fact, you're repeating the same arguments given there. They aren't convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I have a strong argument in that this article violates policies and fails notability guidelines. The "repetitiveness" of my arguments have nothing to do with their strength, and "they aren't convincing" is merely your opinion (which I respect). You said "And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others." What makes this article an exception? We can all of a sudden disregard policy and notability guidelines? I am very skeptical about your statements, which provide a weak argument at best in my opinion. —EdGl 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. It's called common sense, and it's a valuable asset in making all decisions. Misplaced Pages should describe itself(Misplaced Pages is notable, for many reasons, but even if it wasn't, I'd say it would be important for the site to be able to describe itself). Misplaced Pages has foreign-language components(if you don't believe this is the case, I suggest you visit wikipedia.org). Since they clearly exist, they should also be described. Given the potential length of those articles, having seperate articles is probably the best way to do that. Can you come up with a good reason why having this article is a real and substantial problem? I can't. Can you come up with a better way to do things? I doubt it, but you're welcome to make suggestions as to other options. However, deletion is not one of them. It's not effective. If you've gotten any objections to the content, you can check it seperately, but please don't try AfD's for cleanup. Anyway, you can cite policies all you want, but if you'll check things like WEB, SELF, others, they have exceptions and clarifications that clearly show they aren't to be adhereded to like a bunch of mindless machines. FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. I hope the closing admin will take comments like that into account when deciding on something like this. If we start ignoring WP:RS, then where does it stop? We might as well throw WP:V out the window. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of WP:NN: "Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to remain on Misplaced Pages. This is a necessary result of Misplaced Pages being a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. The terms 'importance' and 'significance' are also in use, and for practical purposes on Misplaced Pages they are similar." That is why this article is problematic. Also, if I could have come up with a better way to do things, then I would just do it. But, since I don't believe this article deserves to be on Misplaced Pages, and I want to get a consensus on whether it should be kept or not, I brought it here. By all means, if you convince me that this article should be kept, I'll change my mind. I want to see what the community thinks first. I want to get suggestions out of you guys :-) —EdGl 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the very first part of Notability is: This page is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. . Note the not set in stone, common sense, occasional exception. This is clearly one of those. FrozenPurpleCube 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Clearly one of those? Well I don't think so. Take a look at the article again (Divehi Misplaced Pages). It has been around for eight months, but it is grown to be no more than a five sentence stub. Without independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, I don't see this article growing at all. I don't even think this article has the potential to grow. An article about the smallest nook/cranny about Misplaced Pages shouldn't exist. The "occasional exceptions" would include the other "language Misplaced Pages" articles (that have thousands more articles than the Divehi Misplaced Pages) that I didn't put on AFD. —EdGl 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
So, it's a slow growing encyclopedia, which is no surprise given the number of speakers. So what? It's a simple article, with nothing that needs extensive verification outside the wikipedia software. Believe it or not, it's quite possible to check the number of articles it hasAll you need is this link and you can verify the date at this site. Other than that, the only other information refers to the language itself, which I assume you're not questioning. All in all, no big deal. Does this article need to grow? I suppose, but that would depend on Wikipedians who speak both languages being interested in informing us. I doubt it'll happen quickly, if at all, but so what? That's just a result of the idiosyncratic growth of Misplaced Pages, not an argument as to merit. As it stands though, what content is there right now is not a problem, no matter how much you try to make it out to be. This is not a mountain. It's not even a molehill. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
May I remind you that Misplaced Pages:Assume bad faith is intended as humor and should not be followed. Never do that again. My intention is not to "show how flawed and biased processes on Misplaced Pages are", but to get a consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. What exactly did you mean by your question anyway? —EdGl 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A totally unacceptable response, Pavel, and I suggest you rethink your attitude. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I came here to get community opinion, input, and consensus, not to be accused of bad faith. Not only were your comments unacceptable and offensive, but totally unproductive as well. Can you please defend your keep vote instead of bashing fellow Wikipedians? Seriously, is your point to show how uncivil Wikipedians are? (Of course, if you apologize, all will be forgiven and forgotten.) —EdGl 18:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I trust that this vote will not hold any weight towards the final decision on this case. —EdGl 04:15, 2 November 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.