Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Buran Origin of Death

Arggh. So much time to "rescue" plot of random story. Maybe it is better to write another, better article instead of policy throwing? Bulwersator (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is better. Which must make you wonder whether the aim is the general improvement of the encyclopaedia, or reflexive defence of every single article that comes up for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please see Before nominating an article for deletion which recommends exploring such alternatives before starting a discussion of this kind. Warden (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this article because I see no hope for it. I wrote "better to write another, better article" Bulwersator (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed CW: please point out exactly where WP:BEFORE states that you should not nominate an article for deletion if "another, better article" (most probably having no content in common) can be written? Kindly cease and desist misrepresenting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in bold is emphasised to highlight its importance, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Warden (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of ANOTHER ARTICLE do you fail to understand? Creating ANOTHER ARTICLE is NOT "normal editing" of a different article. The quoted passage is therefore completely irrelevant -- and your complaint further crass unsubstantiated demonisation of your opponents. Kindly cease and desist these abusive & disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles and scope are not immutable. Expanding or amending these is performed by normal editing, not by deletion. Deletion is only for topics for which no suitable home can be found. Please see our deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Warden (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so conceivably this article could be turned into an article on any topic (some of which must be notable). So using your logic we should never delete any article. But given that no notable topic would have use for a recap of a single, non-notable, legend, this new article would have neither topic nor content in common with the original article -- so it is so it is neither an 'improvement' on the original, nor 'normal editing'. Your argument is simply ludicrous WP:WIKILAWYERING. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel presented nice example of WP:POINTBulwersator (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You placed a {{Proposed deletion}} template on an article. This invites editors to respond, "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so.". You should therefore not be surprised if this invitation is acted upon. Warden (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop massive WP:POINT? There is nothing about "replacing content with article on different subject" Bulwersator (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive editing is, by definition, not disruptive. Please see WP:NOTPOINTY. Warden (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you deleted old article outside of PROD/db/AfD process, disrupted interwikis and caused (small) mess in history Bulwersator (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems to be you that has acted improperly and caused a mess - please see WP:CUTPASTE. Warden (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion I should revert your blanking without moving your quite useful content? Bulwersator (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not blank anything. My opinion is that you should stick to the Polish wikipedia as you seem to be out of your depth here, perhaps due to your weak English and differences in policy details between these instances. Warden (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old article was blanked, new content was valuable but should be placed as separate article. "differences in policy details" - I asked, with following result: "It surely was improper to usurp a title like that without waiting for a disposition on the old article's prod. —teb728[odp t c 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)"] Bulwersator (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLANK which explains that "page blanking means editing a page so as to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content." You continue to use such terms inappropriately, accusing me of things that I did not do. Your command of our language and policy pages seems inadequate. Please see also WP:CIR which explains that "If someone can't use English well, and can't discuss things with other editors very well, consider trying to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.". Warden (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you deleted entire content of old article and inserted new in single edit. As it is not common there is no special name for it, but "old article was blanked" is IMHO not so bad. Can you suggest alternative description of your action? Bulwersator (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do it quite often and call it a rewrite. WP:REWRITE is something else but our editing policy says "If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it...". Warden (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly notable topics which encompass a recap of this myth because we see that there are multiple good sources which include such recaps. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bald unsubstantiated assertions prove nothing. ~~QED~~ I think I'll observe 'avoidance of bridges' from here on in. Have fun. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]