Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek to Me (series)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. It doesn't meet our notability criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greek to Me (series)
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:WEB as a non-notable Youtube "series." No independent reliable sources. Otto4711 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep mainly procedural. nominator proded, but didn't contact authors as suggested in prod, so i removed the prod, awaiting him to at least contact someone. The nominator then took this to afd. TO me it is a stub that needs marked for improvement before nominating for AFD, the nominator did not mark for improvement, nor consider that the article could be improved. There is no evidence of research to verify that nominator's opinion. it seems like he's just going around marking things for deletion without considering any other solution to his perceived situation. I assume he has the best intent, but i am concerned that he is not trying to follow any recommended procedure other than nominate for afd. perhaps afd is just iar for him. contentwise i don't care, procedurewise i do. --Buridan 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no requirement that an article be listed for improvement before deletion, nor should there be, as that would make the deletion process impossible. There is no requirement that an author be contacted on a PROD, and removing the PROD tag merely for that reason is disruptive and not conducive to properly maintaining a good encyclopedia. If you think that the article can be improved, then go ahead and do it, but it is not incumbent on others to do the work that you, personally, think should be done. If the article can be improved by the end of the five day AfD period such that it can be proven that it is something other than any other run-of-the-mill Youtube video, then more power to you. I'll change my !vote. But until such a time, this is just another run-of-the-mill Youtube video with no sources to indicate that it is anything else, and should be deleted accordingly. Corvus cornix 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment not a bureaucracy, true, but it is a series of communities of editors, following the recommendations of that community in its own documents is likely a good thing when possible. I never said that he should improve it, what i said was that he should have at least let the editors who created know, it is common courtesy. it is a common courtesy that when it is forgone on other perhaps more important articles causes things to be deleted which communities might otherwise support. everyone can't be everywhere. and no removing the prod for that is not disruptive, it is WP:common --Buridan 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Removing a prod because the prodder didn't notify somebody is a WP:POINT violation. And just how many people in an article's edit history should the prodder notify? The person who created a one-sentence stub two years ago? The editor who has been editing one sentence at a time for a year or so? The anon who has vandalized the article every day for a month? Corvus cornix 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- seeing as there are few... one one contact all, else usually the last 2-3 contributors seem sufficient. again common sense is applied. the issue is when the nominator uses prod, doesn't always put it in the edit summary, and doesn't notify anyone, don't you see where that causes issues? here he used an edit summary, yet the prod template provides a simple way to notify. given his prolific edits and deletion contributions, it might be worth the time to at least follow template recs. as for making a point, yeah IAR, sometimes a point has to be made.--Buridan 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment not a bureaucracy, true, but it is a series of communities of editors, following the recommendations of that community in its own documents is likely a good thing when possible. I never said that he should improve it, what i said was that he should have at least let the editors who created know, it is common courtesy. it is a common courtesy that when it is forgone on other perhaps more important articles causes things to be deleted which communities might otherwise support. everyone can't be everywhere. and no removing the prod for that is not disruptive, it is WP:common --Buridan 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no requirement that an article be listed for improvement before deletion, nor should there be, as that would make the deletion process impossible. There is no requirement that an author be contacted on a PROD, and removing the PROD tag merely for that reason is disruptive and not conducive to properly maintaining a good encyclopedia. If you think that the article can be improved, then go ahead and do it, but it is not incumbent on others to do the work that you, personally, think should be done. If the article can be improved by the end of the five day AfD period such that it can be proven that it is something other than any other run-of-the-mill Youtube video, then more power to you. I'll change my !vote. But until such a time, this is just another run-of-the-mill Youtube video with no sources to indicate that it is anything else, and should be deleted accordingly. Corvus cornix 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For failing WP:WEB and WP:V Bfigura (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment anyone can remove a prod for any reason, so there's no need to dispute about process. I always notify, though, and I hope other people do. It's time we arranged for doing it securely and automatically--it shouldn't depend on individual action. We want to encourage nominating for PROD, and also for notification. Various bots have been written , but none seem to be working consistently. Time to get it right. DGG (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not sure what the debate above portends. The subject of the article appears to be not notable. Google hits for +"Greek to Me" +kapelos yields 5 Google hits. I fail to see how not telling those who have edited the article will change that. Making assertions that seem not to assume good faith do not change the article's lack of notability. That there are no verifiable sources listed on the article may be because there are none to be found. Whether the creator was notified or not, this article should probably have been deleted without too much controversy. Bringing it here and carrying on a debate that could have taken place on the article or user talk pages just feels disruptive to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:04, 30 September 2007 (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.
