Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the discussion was Move discussion to MfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia strategy, was at Wikipedia strategy

Original research. TomTheHand 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep --matador300 05:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Of course I'm the author, but surely there is a place for such tactics as used by wikipedia users, as they have been documented on the f-14 talk pages. There are no "odd" opinions, only the documented fact by engineering manager Bob Kress that the F-14 was designed for maneuverability, and Flight Magazine 1969 that calls the F-14 an air superiority fighter. Unfortunately it appears that the majority of WP users sympathize with Mmx1 in being able to be persons with zero credentials dismiss all reliable sources and construct factually incorrect positions that can be placed in WP while cited sources can be removed, and innocent collateral articles can also be removed with full approval of WP editors. This is a rather shocking learning experience for me, and I will certainly transfer this information elsewhere if the WP community won't stand for it. I would encourage other people who are similarly appalled by what goes into WP to please support me, I don't see any of them here which is disheartening to say the least. --matador300 05:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
  • It's not intended to be an attack page, however it is difficult to identify these practices without identifying 1 or 2 specific people --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
    • Comment matador300, Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies are verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Please read about those three core policies of Wikipedia; the fact that you wrote this article in the Wikipedia mainspace, and the fact that you believe it should remain there, makes it obvious that you have never done so. TomTheHand 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta, where the information is more appropriate. --ais523 14:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment seems to be quite specific to Wikipedia. I think it'd be better userfied or moved to Wikipedia: namespace, rather than going to meta. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to WP namespace If there is sentiment to delete it there, that should be a separate discussion. Septentrionalis 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I kinda agree with the guys above. This seems more like (a fairly sensible) essay than anything else; could be useful under the Wikipedia: namespace. It's clearly not an encyclopedia article, though. Userfy or Move to Wikipedia: namespace and categorize as an essay. -- Captain Disdain 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I wasn't aware that this was an attack page (thanks for the heads-up!). As such, delete the goddamn thing and give the creator a wedgie for violating WP:POINT and generally being a jerk about the whole thing. -- Captain Disdain 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -although there are a lot of good points, it looks like just letting off steam to me, and duplicates stuff already on the user's talk page (plus he/she was expecting it to get deleted and it would be a shame to disappoint) Yomangani 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems to be only created to continue personal attacks at User:Mmx1, the creator has some strange view about some plane's history (like F-14 Tomcat and others). He does not listen to valid arguments and sources but prefers personal attacks and insults. --Denniss 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Denniss seems to make sensible contributions, so does Denniss believe that Bob Kress told Modern Marvels that the F-14 was designed for good turn performance? Flight Magazine 1969 titles a photo "VFX air superiority fighter: F-14", does that mean that the F-14 was the first "air superiority fighter", not the F-15 as claimed by Mmx1? If you agree with Mmx1 that both premesis are false, then I am indeed and we are all in a good bit of trouble. I'd like to know on my talk page what you think is a "strange view" of the F-14, and Mmx's claim that the F-14 never had a dogfighting requirement and must be removed from the air superiority fighter page. --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace per Captain Disdain and Septentrionalis. Delete mainspace redirect. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move and delete, as above - Bravada, talk - 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per ais523. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as obvious attack page and warn user - this is the author's reaction to the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous failures in science and engineering and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous successes in science and engineering, which were nominated by User:Mmx1, plus previous personal gripes with same user. --DaveG12345 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment DaveG12345 appears to be a professional article deleter based on his contributions or lack of them , he is part of the problem I am documenting --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete This could be a decent essay for namespace, but as of now it is too attackish. Footnotes to specific incidents verge on violating WP:NPA.--Kchase02 T 06:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this an AfD or an RfC on me? I can't really tell. --Mmx1 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • An AfD. Attack pages are grounds for speedy deletion, which is why I referenced the policy. No point in keeping it if it may violate policy. Sorry to make you defensive, though.--Kchase02 T 18:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment was tongue in cheek. Note that Matador has moved it into Wiki space and removed the AfD tag. --Mmx1 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoops! Missed that. :) --Kchase02 T 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So the article has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace. What are the criteria for inclusion there? Can you just put anything there? TomTheHand 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    Tom, essays are generally allowable in Wikipedia space (as far as I understand it) provided that they are marked as such (with {{essay}}) and aren't attack pages. That's generally decided at Miscellany for deletion, I believe. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'd say Wikipediaspace is not the proper place for this "essay", it somehow "institutonalizes" it, and its still somebodys angry statement over a personal feud and injured ego. I'd rather see it within userspace, without redirects from the namespace. This whole thing just caused far too much ado than it is really worth. Bravada, talk - 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think I'd like to move it to Wikipedia:Gaming the system (currently a redirect) and make it into something worthwhile. It'd be easier not to start it over, but if it's deleted, no big deal to me. The original author seems to be moderating his stance over the last few days. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's improving. I'd suggest a big fat message over the last section warning that some of those are just bad moves that will help you make enemies fast.--Kchase02 T 06:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close and relist on MfD, as this is now Wikipedia-space rather than an article. --ais523 10:49, 13 July 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Wikipedia_strategy_5672.html"