Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Job scheduler: 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:22, 29 October 2008 editAditya (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,053 edits Question← Previous edit Revision as of 18:25, 29 October 2008 edit undoSpidern (talk | contribs)3,835 edits Job schedulerNext edit →
Line 11: Line 11:
****Please familiarize yourselves with our ] and our ]. We allow articles to exist in a state of imperfection. We don't delete imperfect articles for them to be re-created later. We ''build upon what exists'', and ''improve'' articles, by ] editing them. We only delete articles if no sources actually exist at all, and it is thus impossible to write an article. '''AFD is not the only tool in ].''' Please read, and absorb, ]. If you come across an article that you think does not have enough sources, ''look for sources yourself''. If you find an article that is bad, ''rewrite it yourself to make it better''. Writing the encyclopaedia is not somebody else's problem. ] (]) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC) ****Please familiarize yourselves with our ] and our ]. We allow articles to exist in a state of imperfection. We don't delete imperfect articles for them to be re-created later. We ''build upon what exists'', and ''improve'' articles, by ] editing them. We only delete articles if no sources actually exist at all, and it is thus impossible to write an article. '''AFD is not the only tool in ].''' Please read, and absorb, ]. If you come across an article that you think does not have enough sources, ''look for sources yourself''. If you find an article that is bad, ''rewrite it yourself to make it better''. Writing the encyclopaedia is not somebody else's problem. ] (]) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
*****'''Comment''': Under the current circumstances, where no sources have been added to the article in over a year, should the article still be kept? ]] 18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC) *****'''Comment''': Under the current circumstances, where no sources have been added to the article in over a year, should the article still be kept? ]] 18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
*****While in principle I agree that an article should be allowed in a state of imperfection for an extended period of time, the principle of ] takes a higher priority in this case. I challenge this article for AfD because a notice for lack of sources has existed on the page for over a year. This is not an unreasonable case for nomination. Further, the content is not encyclopedic for the reasons I outlined above. ] (]) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:25, 29 October 2008

Job scheduler

Job scheduler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article does not cite enough sources. Also borders on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The implementations section is more of a list than what should be an article.Spidern (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories: