Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platform No. 1 (2nd nomination)
- 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A3. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Platform No. 1 (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 is a strange one. An article on this subject was first created on 14 April 2011. It was taken to AFD in May 2012, which led to a decision to incubate the article. Unscintillating (talk · contribs) initiated a discussion about the incubated article at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Platform No. 1. No one else contributed any input, but the "result" of the "discussion" involved creating a page in mainspace "to mark mainspace with a Portal template". The resulting page is obviously not a normal article, and as a result it was nominated for speedy deletion under the "no content" criterion. I declined the speedy because this clearly isn't the typical "no content" situation. Really I'm not sure what it is. Unscintillating has also posted about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Incubator Portal review, but even looking at their comments there, I can't make sense of what they are trying to do. So I'm bringing this to AFD for discussion so the community can provide input on whether this sort of "marker" is something that should be permitted in mainspace. RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you knew that there was a discussion at the Village Pump, how will a 2nd discussion here help Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply to your "Speedy close" comments below. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy delete - no content. We do not need for every article that is "incubated" from articles for deletion, a note in the main namespace. Wikipedia is for articles, not notes that sometime in the future an article perhaps might be created here if references can be found and the editor can be bothered do write the article properly which he should have done in the first place. WP:TROUT Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this doesn't seem like a useful thing to do, but as far as I know this is something novel. (If it has been done before, someone please point to the precedent.) Speedy deletion is for things where it is already established that the community broadly agrees on deleting them. Something novel needs to be discussed first. If the discussion is overwhelmingly for deletion, then we'll know for the future. --RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close This seems to have hit a nerve, there have already been two speedy-deletion tags, a prod, and now this AfD, but there is no urgency here, the worst that will happen is that we will attract new Malayalam editors. There is no argument for deletion, and the nominator mentions April 14 but doesn't seem to realize that the article was created in 2011, and the AfD was in 2012. This is already being discussed at WP:Village pump (policy)#Incubator Portal review. Unscintillating (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct about the date; I did overlook the year. I've fixed that now so no one will be misled reading the nomination statement. As for the rest, no one but you has "discussed" anything about this anywhere, and this is the standard venue for discussing whether a page in mainspace should be deleted. If there is no need to delete it, then participants in the discussion can make that clear. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - this article qualifies as both A1 and A3. There is no substantive content, and even if you take a sentence affirming the negative to be substantive content, there is no context whatsoever. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Basalisk is involved in the Omar Todd history that is part of the discussion at the Village Pump, in fact, I undid one of his/her edits to prepare to create the discussion at the village pump. Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- obvious speedy delete I would do this myself if I were not heavily involved in the discussion of closing the incubator. This is 'clearly an A3, no content, and the creation of it is decidely pointy. The user who created this needs to accept the reality that they are polishing the brass on the Titanic, and none of these bizarre attempts to expand this failed project are going to have the magical effect they apparently think they will. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious speedy delete per A1/A3 and above. Ansh666 20:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.