Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC power plugs and sockets (organization by US Dept of Commerce standard)


 * 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 speedily deleted  by  per A10, a duplicate of AC power plugs and sockets. Non-admin closure. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AC power plugs and sockets (organization by US Dept of Commerce standard)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Content fork of AC power plugs and sockets. Violation of WP:POVFORK -- was created in response to a debate at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote for keep. (Do you even know why?)


 * Looking through your edit history Zzyzx11, it appears you have not even participated in the article discussion at all and so your delete nomination is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the apparent "fork policy violation", and based on no other reasoning.


 * It appears you have no involvement in the improvement of this or the alternate version article. Do you even know why this article fork is needed, or doesn't it matter, only the "violation" matters? DMahalko (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[Comment moved from article talk:] There is justification for having different organizational methods for content as global and all-encompassing as articles that attempt to unify widely varying standards which themselves make no attempt at trying to align with any particular standard.

Forking of article content is already wildly different across different language versions of the same content. I don't see people going on a delete rampage of other language wikis because the content differs from what is on the English wiki, or vice-versa.

Also the wikipedia policies are guidelines only, and exceptions may occur (WP:IAR). DMahalko (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Other language versions generally operate differently, with different users, and thus generate different consensus. A content fork is one of the items listed on WP:DEL. Your content fork currently duplicates word-for-word, almost 2/3rds of the original article, including the lead section, most of the history section, the content about unusual types, and so forth. This material is totally irrelevant to the AC organization issues. How can you guarantee that both articles will remain in sync? It's one thing to split such content into more detailed pages and use the summary style method; quite another to do a content fork that merely just reorganizes all the sections without changing a majority of the content. Also, WP:IAR only works in the long term if there is a sufficient number of users commenting to generate agreeable consensus, which is why I opened it here on AFD to generate a wider discussion, instead of just the two of us argue back and forth. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is more than 2/3rds, it is a near exact duplicate of an older revision. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under the A10 criteria as a WP:POVFORK of AC power plugs and sockets. (diff) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, this article's creation is a possibly bad faith act by a disgruntled editor who disagrees with the consensus changes happening at the original article. Roger (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct, the article contains duplication, and I WAS planning to trim it down to just the types section, but need time to think about how to do the trimming. Of course you're so damn triggerhappy with the delete button that there is no time allowed for such copyediting to occur. Sorry but I have to sleep sometime, and I have more to do in my life than sitting on here responding to other editors.


 * It appears the delete procedures have been violated by yourselves, as a week is supposed to be allowed if there is argument on the subject. Also how is anyone else supposed to participate in improving the fork, if it is removed so hastily without time for it to develop?


 * I will likely re-create the article as a user-page so there is time to shorten the article to the specific sections in question. DMahalko (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2011 (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.