Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zapatista

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 keep as changed. Good work, people. DS 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zapatista

This page needs to be deleted for various reasons. Here is the list:

1. Page is NPOV...quite frankly written by ardent and zealous supports
2. Page is Un-encyclopdedic...some of the article is just unintelligable ramblings
3. Article is a combination of two completely seperate articles...Zapatista EZLN and Emiliano Zapata
4. Article is a cut and past from better wikipedia articles (see below)
5. Article is well written and sourced when and encyclopdedic on these pages
   • Emiliano_Zapata for emiliano zapata
   • EZLN for the EZLN
   • Mexican_revolution for the mexican revolution

This page needs to be deleted and a disamb page created for those two or three articles above. This page is a cut and past, way way below wiki standards and better articles already exist. I would create the page myself but I dont know how yet. Thank You. Disagreement? Oh BTW, I dont think this page should be saved or worked on. That was my first impulse but there are better articles already in existence. Jasper23 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Your points 1–4 are a matter of Wikipedia:Cleanup, not reasons for deletion, and your point 5 is a matter for Wikipedia:Merger. None are reasons for deleting the article. Everything that you say is wrong with the article can be fixed via normal editing. Administrative privileges are not required. Indeed, not even an account is required. Please see our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you read the article and the other articles in question. Merger would only dilute the good articles contents. Sorry, but deleting this article and creating a disamb. page for the others is the best solution. Jasper23 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Administrator privileges are not required in order to rewrite an article. As I said, everything that you say is wrong with the article can be fixed by normal editors using the normal editing tools. You have not stated any problem with the article that can only by fixed by an administrator hitting the delete button. Only bring things to AFD where that latter is what is required. Uncle G 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (for now) - I'm not opposed to other outcomes (merge, disambiguify, etc) being discussed, and I'm not even opposed to an eventual redirect. But I suggest that editors interested in the subject work to reach a consensus on what that outcome would be, preferably on the article's talk page. In fact, make a note of this on the talk page of the other articles mentioned above, and see what consensus other editors reach on this one. But it's way to early in this discussion process to be suggesting deletion. -- H·G (^words/_works) 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A discussion on Talk:Zapatista already exists, and the nominator has already participated in it. Uncle G 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please stop asking me to edit the page. I began to do that and to create other pages for this article when I noticed that this article is a collection of "stubs" from better article. It is a cut and paste article and stub duplicates of better articles. The word zapatista should be used as a redirect for Emiliano Zapatista and the EZLN. If I knew how to do that I would. The very best way to edit this article would be to cut and past the two excellent articles, that I have already mentioned, into this article. Then to split the article in two. This article is a duplicate. Editing wont change that. Remove this article from the nominated deletion list if you like, however wikipedia quality will suffer.Jasper23 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The very best way to edit this article would be to cut and past the two excellent articles, that I have already mentioned, into this article. Then to split the article in two. — There you go. At no point have you described a task that cannot be done by normal editors such as yourself hitting the "edit this page" tab and editing the relevant articles. No administrator intervention or AFD required. Be bold! Uncle G 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Did you read any of the articles? Or my statement that you quoted "The very best way to edit this article would be to cut and past the two excellent articles, that I have already mentioned, into this article. Then to split the article in two. Do you get where I was going with that? How do you create a disambig. page. That could fix the problem.

  Here is the solution......turn this page into a disamb. page. If we do that then it doesnt need to be deleted (just blanked). Please, I am a new contributor and I am just looking for the best solution to what I see as a horrible oversight/problem that exists on wikipedia. Asking me to edit the page over and over again is rude. Remember I am a new user and dont know all the rules. I really wish that you would read the pages (I know quite a bit about this subject) and tell me how editing could possibly be a solution. When people search for zapatista they are looking for one of the two pages I listed above. All we need it a redirect/disambig. page. However, I dont know how to create one. Yeah, maybe I am in the wrong place and should never have asked for this article to be deleted. But I am acting in good faith to help the quality standards of wikipedia.Jasper23 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I already linked to Wikipedia:Be bold. The other link that you need is Help:Editing, which you've already seen with every edit that you've made to this page. I also refer you to the welcome message posted on your talk page on 2006-07-30. Please read all of what those three link to. Uncle G 01:34, 10 August 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.