Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Skills

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

closed as Withdrawn - notability established, and advertising content less prevelant Mayalld (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Skills

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

Delete Blatant advertising Mayalld (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs work and needs some trimming to remove some tidbits. I have never heard of them before but it is notable and I easily found tons of sources from all over the globe:

1. http://www.korea.net/News/News/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20071122032
2. http://www.kkr.gov.my/kkrportal/kkrportal?cid=News
3. http://www.icvet.tafensw.edu.au/ezine/year_2007/jul/interview_callaghan.htm
4. http://english.vietnamnet.vn/education/2007/11/756366/
5. http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-and-tees-valley/teesside-and-tees-valley-news/2007/05/08/bid-for-best-in-japan-84229-19064996/

• Those were just a few I found in about 30 seconds of googling for just the 2007 event. There is every reason to fix the current article, which was just started an hour ago. The organization easily passes notability requirements here, however, and shouldn't be deleted. Pharmboy (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Unclear what this article is supposed to be advertising. This is describing an international competition that has existed for over 50 years, that needs to be cleaned up and expanded, not deleted. The pattern of abusive use of speedy deletion (one minute after creation) and AfD (eight minutes after creation) of an article that makes a rather clear claim of notability is continuing a pattern of violations of Wikipedia:deletion policy. This disruptive practice must be put to an end, once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What needs to be put a stop to is your continuing incivility, refusal to assume good faith and false accusations of breaching policy (problems that it is clear I'm not the only one to have noticed). We are clearly at opposite ends of the Inclusionist/Deletionist spectrum, but I don't run round making vexatious claims of breach of policy every time you weigh in to oppose a deletion for no reason other than that I have supported deletion. It is healthy that wikipedians should debate deletions robustly. It is profoundly unhealthy that anybody should seek by their actions to discourage those who disagree with them from joining in the debate. Mayalld (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with Inclusionism/Deletionism. My issue is with your persistent refusal to show the barest shred of good faith to those who create articles you don't care for. Your obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy to make legitimate efforts to research, edit, expand or merge articles are rather clear, and you cannot have exercised these responsibilities in the minute it took you to add the prod tag, nor does it appear that the seven minutes you spent forming the AfD entailed any effort at improving the article. If you fire several dozen shotgun rounds into a bank during a robbery, you will be very likely to kill most of the robbers. It's the innocent bystanders you keep on managing to try to kill that you ought to be far more concerned about and that has raised significant issues on my part and on that of many other editors. Your track record of abusing the speedy deletion and AfD processes must be put to an end. Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I see no evidence of killing any innocent bystanders. Some AfDs result in a deletion outcome, some in a keep outcome, some in a keep outcome and an improved article. You choose to interpret policies in your own way, and act as sole judge of whether people have done enough to fulfil your requirements, which are exacting, because your inclusionism is such that you want to make it difficult to bring an AfD in the first place (rather than argue the specific case). You claim that I have raised significant issues on the part of many editors. May I congratulate you on your apparent appointment as their spokesman. Might I suggest that you concentrate on addressing your own issues with incivility that so many editors have stated they have a problem with. Mayalld (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable as Pharmboy demonstrated. I also see no advertising.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (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.