Nomination of Plaid (programming language) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plaid (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plaid (programming language) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ―15:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"What's up with the hissy fit?" or damage control by the holier-than-thou dude who deleted lots of my hard work
Prat, as "an editor of 15 years," you should know that converting a navbox to a list article is not the equivalent of deleting your work. You can use your listed navbox links, with added narrative content, to build a list article that serves the same content-unifying purpose. The list article can be linked under the "see also" section of each of the related articles. But you know this already, right?
Oh, by the way, I'm a 50-year-old bluewater sailor who has spent his weekends sailing the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico since I was an age too young to crank the coffeegrinders. I've docked a 50' Beneteau under sail, and handled a 47' reefed sloop rig in squall winds just shy of hurricane-force gusts. Be careful what you assume about your fellow editors' knowledge of specific topics; you may discover they are better informed than you know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- And there you go again. Damage control all you like, make all the claims you want, but the discussion has the clear and real evidence showing your absolute incorrectness on scope claims, red link claims (others should go see how few their are! Almost none left in Trimarans at all!). Have fun in your echo chamber, mate. I'm not going to put up with this bullshit, it's beyond pathetic. You are working against growth, spirit and community, and you are entitled to keep doing it if nobody else throws you out. I'm not going to waste my time anymore with people like you around interfering in huge amounts of solid, well researched and literally recently front-page featured article contributions in this area ... and not getting put down. I am visting goddamn libraries for this stuff. What the hell are you doing deleting others' work? Hopefully someone notices what an ass you have been and reverts these changes, anyway I'm done with this. No more patience or time for people like you deleting solid, useful and well intentioned work. It's insulting to the volunteers in the community. prat (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Prat, I'm not doing "damage control" for my sake, but I am concerned when a long-term productive editors storms off in a huff. Frankly, I'm a little taken aback by your failure to acknowledge that your work will be preserved in the form of a list article, and nothing but the navbox format will be lost. Your time has not been wasted, and the substantive content will be preserved in its entirety. The only thing being "deleted" is the navbox format. You know this. As for me working against "against growth, spirit and community," that is complete nonsense, and my rather substantial edit history across a wide variety of sporting topics bears that out. Your navbox -- with far too many red links -- is simply being held to the same standards as the navboxes for every other sport, and every other topic area on Wikipedia. If and when you eliminate the red links within the current navbox, you may easily recreate the navbox or request a "refund" undelete from any uninvolved admin. Moreover, you will then have a stand-alone list article on topic as mandated by the five criteria of the WP:NAVBOX guideline.
- Rather than provoking you further, I will leave you to consider what I have said above, and contemplate whether you truly want to walk away from your substantial work over what is essentially your disagreement with whether it should be presented in the form of a list or a navbox. I certainly hope Wikipedia will not lose the benefit of your work, but that choice is yours, not mine. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Pratyeka: In the event you're unaware of this, you can contest the closure of the TfD discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel it is warranted. North America1000 20:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Greg Goodall
A tag has been placed on Greg Goodall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Patchy1
REF THIS BLP 15:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Enhancement to Buddhist traditions timeline
List of superfoods
Prat -- as you have contributed to initiating and editing this list in the past, please give your thoughts on whether the article should be deleted, as proposed yesterday. Guidelines:. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)