Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Base Encoding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 152.3.116.198 (talk) at 00:14, 18 February 2008 (sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 00:14, 18 February 2008 by 152.3.116.198 (talk) (sign)
- 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The result was nomination withdrawn. 152.3.116.198 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 Base Encoding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is why I nominated {{underconstruction}} for deletion. This quite clearly meets WP:CSD#A3, yet due to the existence of this template which I think serves only to fill Wikipedia up with junk like this, I'm discouraged from nominating it for deletion. The "show preview" button is there for a reason. Is it likely that the author will come back and transform this into an encyclopedic article? I think not. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to user subpage, such as User:Hashtpa9/2 Base Encoding. It is clear that the article as it is should not be in the main namespace, however I'm rather surprised the nominator did not WP:AGF upon seeing the template. The page history shows that the author is continuing to work on the article (albeit in small degrees), and the author's contributions show that this is their first article and they are not likely to completely know what to do. Rather than delete this and really scare him off, I propose we allow him to continue to work on the article in an area where he doesn't have to worry about getting things deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- close as premature The author had been working on it so far for exactly 2 hours and 27 minutes before the AfD tag was placed, with a series of edits continuing into the present. I've had a previous discussion on my talk page with the nominator. This does in fact seem to be a substantial method in molecular biology--see the reference posted on the initial version. It is permitted to build articles on-wiki in article space. Myself, I regard this as a good example of what the underconstruction tag is intended for. If the article in a week is no further along, then the author should be reminded about it--or if one wished to be impersonal, the article nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- close I agree, we should assume good faith and give a chance for improvement. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- close as premature The author had been working on it so far for exactly 2 hours and 27 minutes before the AfD tag was placed, with a series of edits continuing into the present. I've had a previous discussion on my talk page with the nominator. This does in fact seem to be a substantial method in molecular biology--see the reference posted on the initial version. It is permitted to build articles on-wiki in article space. Myself, I regard this as a good example of what the underconstruction tag is intended for. If the article in a week is no further along, then the author should be reminded about it--or if one wished to be impersonal, the article nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not assuming bad faith. If this article is significantly improved by the end of this AfD, it can be kept. I just don't think it's likely that it will be, and this is where my issues with the underconstruction template lie. I believe that even new users should be guided towards creating an article that meets basic Wikipedia standards (enough to make them not qualify for CSD) before saving in the namespace. New users should be strongly encouraged to use the show preview button, make it absolutely clear what the subject of the article is, and why it is important.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your last comment contradicts itself. You first say that you are not assuming bad faith, and then you say that you don't believe the article creator when he puts {underconstruction} on the article, which is a crystal clear assumption of bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close as a bad faith nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom withdrawn. We can revisit this later.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.