Instead of redirecting or deleting, how about getting someone to merge it into the immigration article?
On 1/12/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Surely it is easier to change an article into a one-line stub than it is to put it through the non-speedy deletion processes.
Let's do a case study. Here's an article which looks to me like useless semi-coherent original research which we'd be better off without:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_immigrant_groups_extended_family_pos...
Yet the topic - which the article does a very poor job of defining - is probably worthwhile.
Actually I don't think the topic is at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. It'd make a good essay, but I seriously doubt you'd see such a title (or indeed any which start out "Changes in...") in, for example, Britannica. For Wikipedia sometimes we get strange article titles like this for what is really a subpage of another article, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
How would you recommend we proceed?
Redirect to [[extended family]] (optionally merging if you think it's worthwhile).
Can you quickly salvage a coherent useful stub out of this?
Regards, Haukur
Anthony
How would you recommend we proceed?
Redirect to [[extended family]] (optionally merging if you think it's worthwhile).
Actually, I'd recommend implementing semi-deletion so that the article could be deleted while the content kept viewable by everyone. But since semi-deletion doesn't exist, redirects are the next best thing.
Anthony
Instead of redirecting or deleting, how about getting someone to merge it into the immigration article?
Merging a semi-coherent unsourced essay which is probably original research into even a half-decent article is not the way to go.
But, by all means, anyone who is arguing that the best way to proceed with this case is not to delete the article, please do something. And here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_immigrant_groups_extended_family_pos...
I will admit that most of the articles in the wikification category are not this bad and many of them are quite decent and should not at all be deleted. Sorry if I sounded overzealous.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/12/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Surely it is easier to change an article into a one-line stub than it is to put it through the non-speedy deletion processes.
Let's do a case study. Here's an article which looks to me like useless semi-coherent original research which we'd be better off without:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_immigrant_groups_extended_family_pos...
Yet the topic - which the article does a very poor job of defining - is probably worthwhile.
Actually I don't think the topic is at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. It'd make a good essay, but I seriously doubt you'd see such a title (or indeed any which start out "Changes in...") in, for example, Britannica. For Wikipedia sometimes we get strange article titles like this for what is really a subpage of another article, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
How would you recommend we proceed?
Redirect to [[extended family]] (optionally merging if you think it's worthwhile).
Can you quickly salvage a coherent useful stub out of this?
Regards, Haukur
Anthony
How would you recommend we proceed?
Redirect to [[extended family]] (optionally merging if you think it's worthwhile).
Actually, I'd recommend implementing semi-deletion so that the article could be deleted while the content kept viewable by everyone. But since semi-deletion doesn't exist, redirects are the next best thing.
Anthony
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/12/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Instead of redirecting or deleting, how about getting someone to merge it into the immigration article?
Merging a semi-coherent unsourced essay which is probably original research into even a half-decent article is not the way to go.
But, by all means, anyone who is arguing that the best way to proceed with this case is not to delete the article, please do something. And here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_immigrant_groups_extended_family_pos...
Frankly, in this particular case, I wouldn't have any problem if someone who thinks the best way to proceed with this case is to delete the article just deleted the article. But apparently there isn't a speedy criterion for it.
I do think a redirect would be better, but between deletion, redirection, and just keeping it the way it is, I don't really think it matters all that much.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/12/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Instead of redirecting or deleting, how about getting someone to merge it into the immigration article?
Merging a semi-coherent unsourced essay which is probably original research into even a half-decent article is not the way to go.
But, by all means, anyone who is arguing that the best way to proceed with this case is not to delete the article, please do something. And here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_immigrant_groups_extended_family_pos...
Frankly, in this particular case, I wouldn't have any problem if someone who thinks the best way to proceed with this case is to delete the article just deleted the article. But apparently there isn't a speedy criterion for it.
I do think a redirect would be better, but between deletion, redirection, and just keeping it the way it is, I don't really think it matters all that much.
Forgive me for not knowing enough about the Foundation's other projects (and if I've just mangled an apostrophe), but isn't this what Wikisource is for?