Talk:Social insertion

Deletion Nomination
With the updates I added, I believe the article no longer qualifies for deletion. Aelffin (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But like... what is it?
It would be great if the article actually explained what Social Insertion is. The article as written is completely useless. 130.160.124.6 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Two of the refs are dead or non-rs and one is a malware page, so I need to revert.  scope_creep Talk  21:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article being in a poor state is a fine reason to discuss or alter it, but it is not an excuse to effectively delete the article without discussion, possibly worse for that effective deletion to be a redirect to an unrelated article that will confuse and/or mislead readers who are sent there from articles linking to the social insertion article. I'll look into sprucing up the article later if I have some free time, but regardless of if I can or not, the idea that the default behavior in this situation is to effectively delete the article and redirect to an unrelated one is ridiculous.  If anything, dead sources and start a discussion for how to improve the article.  You do not "need to revert...", nor is it your decision to unilaterally make (repeatedly, without comment for the first few times, even when directly confronted).  And for the record, while we're here, I'm not sure why you added "or non-rs" when discussing the sources.  Looking at them now, I see the 2nd and 3rd sources as dead links, and the 4th source receives a warning of being misconfigured by Firefox (no cert), but it is not malware, as you claim, and in fact, the site is still up and completely functional.  If I do not find the time later today, then I am simply taking this to a 3rd party and not dealing with you anymore.  Effective deletion without discussion, redirection to an unrelated article, and refusal to engage for the first several times confronted is not okay.  Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you, as the proposing editor, to provide significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Redirecting a page is a satisfactory alternative to deletion when editors cannot provide strong sourcing to warrant a dedicated article. czar  18:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks   I work in page review and the article was reviewed as part of article review process known as as WP:NPP.  Currently the reference that were there very poor, a mix of non-rs and what I thought was malware. The other reference look to be primary. It really needs real better sources, as its definition. The redirect can be reverted assuming you provide these references. Academic references are ideal. Also statements like this "Some have been suspicious of the term" needs to be clarified, who? All of it, is more fodder for a redirect   scope_creep Talk  19:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , the onus is not on me, because I am not a "proposing editor" in this circumstance. I will draw the attention of anyone who happens to read this conversation that Czar is the user who made the redirect-as-deletion edit that started this, which I simply reverted.  I made no proposal; Czar simply, without any discussion, decided that the article should not continue to exist.  While redirecting may be a satisfactory alternative to deletion in some circumstances, that requires both (1) that a decision for the article to discontinue existence is made, which you should not have done unilaterally and without discussion (I am asserting that what you did is effectively vandalism) and (2) that the the article you redirect to is appropriate to the topic (you asserted in your edit summary that social insertion is basically synonymous with social integration, but that is absolutely not true in the slightest, and the article you chose to redirect to has absolutely no overlap with this article).  So no, redirecting in this case is not appropriate.  That edit you made was a completely inappropriate edit and should never have been made in the first place.  You are the proposing editor here.
 * As for, whatever review process you're claiming happened, I want you to directly link to it here, because whether or not you do happen to participate in NPP, the page isn't new, and being reinstated from an edit that should never have happened in the first place does not make it as new.
 * Here's the situation as I see it: There are exactly 3 users involved in this discourse, and considering both of you have made factually incorrect claims, I doubt this is going to go anywhere.  I am doing this more for the inevitable 3rd-party intervention than to convince you; if you were acting in good faith, we wouldn't have ended up in this situation in the first place, with a unilateral deletion without discussion, redirecting to an unrelated article, and then numerous restorations of that irrelevant redirect with no comment, even when directly confronted about why the restoration was being done and with direct insistence that you should discuss on the talk page if you felt a deletion was appropriate.  It may be the case that the article is in such a poor state that you want to consider radical changes to it.  That's fine, and a completely appropriate response, but unilaterally making a decision to remove the article's content, which does not exist in any other articles, with no discussion or consideration of alternative actions (improving the article, integrating its salvagable content into another article, etc.) is not.
 * So whatever your problems are with the article, lay them bare here. Be specific.  Say which sources you believe are inadequate and specifically why.  Say what content in the article you feel is inappropriately or inadequately sourced.  Make a good faith attempt at improving the article and discuss it.  Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying the onus was on you to be cute—it's policy. I redirected the article four years ago citing a lack of sourcing as a valid alternative to deletion. The lack of scope is also mentioned in earlier discussions above. If your action is to restore or rewrite the article or contest the redirect after four years, the Wikipedia practice is that the burden is on you as the restoring editor to show what overabundance of sourcing justifies a dedicated article. There isn't anything else to discuss until you can show such sources. czar  22:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it's policy... the culture of Wikipedia editorship has been dominated for a decade or more by people who would rather delete others' work than contribute their own for the simple fact that it's so much faster and easier to delete than it is to build. What might take hours of research to write and source can be nominated for deletion in seconds, discouraging people from making actual contributions and frustrating the productive editors, oftentimes driving them off, leaving the deletion-happy editors to have free reign to rewrite the rules as they please. The results of which have made wikipedia the butt of jokes and done little to improve the content. Case in point: Deleting the entry for Social insertion under the guise of redirection (to an entirely unrelated page). Which is vandalism, even if policy has been rewritten to allow such vandalism. The fact that the inherent power imbalance between those who create and those who destroy has been reified by those who have the greater power is not an argument in favor of vandalism. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)