Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildness (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wildness

Wildness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously nominated for AFD. Article was significantly rewritten, and the nominator changed their mind. Instead of saying so at the AFD, they removed the tag from the article. Nobody opined in the AFD after the rewrite. AFD was closed as delete, and then the AFD nominator nominated the article for deletion review. Evidence there shows some still think it reads as a personal essay and/or POV fork. Please opine on the basis of the new article. This is a technical nomination; I have no opinion. GRBerry 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete but userfy first. There may be a decent article in here, but right now the entire thing is written like an essay, it needs a full rewrite (again). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As much as people hate these types of suggestions, keep and cleanup. Or, in this case, continue to clean up. Obviously a term worthy of inclusion, but Mr. Z-Man makes a good point about how it's written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep this is a real concept, and a notable one. the article needs improvement.DGG 02:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete real concept or not, this reads as a personal essay. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Poor writing isn't grounds for deletion, it means you clean up the article. Any deletion will be DRV'd again. Sourcing is unquestioned. I urge you deletion voters to reconsider that you must follow deletion policy. - Denny (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but strip all hints of the essay language to a bare bones. If nothing is left, consider CSD A1 (with no prejudice to recreation of an article that meets concerns of the deleting admin, of course). If there is something left to work with (which I guess there would be), tag as needed for cleanup/expansion/whatever. By the way, if this does end up delete, there are already enough people chiming in to trump the reason behind the first DRV (lack of consensus over last revision) and I am not as confident at Denny is that one would succeed this time. I also know enough about the work of Guy to know that he knows all about deletion policy and that his opinion is made in good faith and comes from his valid interpretation of said policy. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as said above, this is a real, notable concept. PS: Again my apologies for messing up the whole AFD process, never nominated an AFD before, probably wont ever again! Orgone 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, tag if you like, but it seems ok to me. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a very current concept and the article seems to stick to its reference purpose despite essay-like qualities. Someone will edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.217.6.6 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 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.