Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facebook revolution


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. The article still needs serious work, though. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Facebook revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I would have prodded/speedied this, but expected considerable dissent, considering the viewpoints expressed. The term 'Facebook Revolution' is quite generic and cannot be used to signify anything just to do with Kashmir, a state with geographies extending into both India and Pakistan. Either this page should be deleted; or the page in reality should have a generic connotation (aka, 'Facebook revolution' across the world...).  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  16:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)    ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  16:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep An imperfect title is not a legitimate reason to delete an article. Townlake (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see in the least how this is a deletion issue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs to be wikified and retitled. I suggest "2010 Kashmir "Facebook revolution"... Carrite (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. You want to delete this page merely because the title is "quite generic"? This is Articles for Deletion. You are not proposing to delete the article, you want to move the article. Please note the difference between those two italicized words. I have no idea how this nom has not already been speedily kept under criterion 1.2. Relating to the article itself, it at least appears to be a notable topic, and articles cannot be deleted just because they are in bad shape. Xenon54 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Xenon, Ten Pound Hammer, analyse my viewpoints below with a neutral perspective:
 * Ten Pound Hammer undertook a speedy close on this AfD within 24 hours of this AfD being opened, and very supportively reopened it post discussions on my talk page. Therefore, I am constrained to consider his keep vote as one having a conflict of interest.
 * Xenon, irrespective of that, I do believe there's strength in your and Ten Pound Hammer's argument. I am quite open to this article being retitled to 2010 Kashmir Facebook revolution. But to have the article Facebook revolution be a redirect to 2010 Kashmir Facebook revolution will be ironical as that would be a critical editorial mistake. And that's where I request again that post the retitling, the article Facebook revolution be deleted, rather than be redirected to an article pertaining to Kashmir. I hope that comes out clearer now?   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then move the article and go to redirects for discussion to delete the resulting redirect. If I understand you correctly, I believe WP:RFD criterion 2 ("The redirect might cause confusion") would fit this situation perfectly, especially as there may be other "Facebook revolutions" in the future. Xenon54 (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Now that I have you on my side, allow me to mention that as the article, per se, contains non-neutral and controversial content, moving it would require discussions on the talk page of the article, and post those (hopefully successful) discussions, the deletion of the redirect would require further discussions on the RfD board. That's double the investment of effort already undertaken. Now consider the alternative. In case the editors on this AfD page agree, and as this forum is anyway quite an exhaustive forum for editorial discussions, we could reach a consensus here that combines the two points - that is, moving the page to 2010 Kashmir Facebook revolution and at the same time deleting the original Facebook revolution page. Such combining of the discussions would not only save time, but reduce the load on the AfD forum. I know that this would be radical, and would ignore some rules. But the closing admin could combine all the statements here to take the appropriate move+deletion steps in one go (in case consensus here is for that). What say?  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please. I'm not "on [your] side". You propose that this AfD continue to closure, at which point the closing admin takes the actions you propose. I don't think that is the best way to go about this. Everyone else here wants this AfD to be closed immediately as an inappropriate nomination. The move you propose, in my opinion (and I'm sure others' opinions as well) is non-controversial, involving only the move from a misleading title to a more accurate one; therefore, the move does not inherently require a discussion or consensus. Reiterating what I said -- I think the best way to take care of the misnomer is to be bold and move the damn thing already, withdraw the AfD, and then go to RfD and get the redirect deleted. Quite frankly, this discussion is becoming too complex for what is essentially a minor naming issue. Xenon54 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My take on consensus here is that your AFD fails WP:DEL, which is policy. This AFD should be closed; the article remains subject to improvement through other methods. Nobody, including the nominator, is arguing for deletion. Townlake (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xenon, Townlake. I appreciate your comments and would be perfectly alright with this AfD being closed. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Every "cause" in the real world has at least one group dedicated to it on facebook, orkut or other SNS sites. Some of them may become a bit more notable enough to get a bit of media attention in the small press. Are we going to have a corresponding fanpage on Wikipedia too for each of them. The article is a coatrack for pushing for a cause. None of the sources mention "facebook revolution" as a term. Most mentions are simply of Kashmiri facebook users discussing the current burning issue on facebook adn a few of them being called by the police. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2010 (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.