Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:55, 29 October 2006

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)

• 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 The discussion on the Czech language Misplaced Pages. Especially before proposing any further deletions. Mister.Manticore 22:12, 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. Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 02:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sorry, self-references are not encyclopedia articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient notability from being a Wikimedia project Bwithh 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not without reliable sources which are not self-references. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What statements do you believe need more reliable sources? Mister.Manticore 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates