Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingle Cats


 * 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   speedy keep. Not necessarily a bad-faith AfD, per se, but more a misguided one. This is a content dispute and the place to discuss that is at the article's talk page, not at AfD. The Bushranger One ping only 19:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jingle Cats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article that has recently had around 80% blanked by as " not acceptable", "advertorial" and "not sourced". Rather than this undiscussed blanking by the back door (same editor just did Marvin Suggs and Cat organ too) then let's discuss this out in the open at AfD, as we're supposed to. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT much? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like the nom is making a good-faith nomination; I don't see any evidence of him trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as discussed in WP:POINT. At the same time, AfD is for discussing whether articles deserve to be in Wikipedia at all; the nomination is about a content dispute and contains no assertions of valid reasons for deletion. Thus the AfD nomination is flawed and should likely be withdrawn. Such content disputes are best handled on the talk page of the article. If the stakeholders cannot come to a consensus on the talk page, then dispute resolution, as described in WP:DISPUTE, might be called for. Good luck to both of you, Mark viking (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe nominations are essential at AfD because, "You may wish to delete this and if there is consensus to do so then away it goes" is always implicit. I'm just bringing it to others' attention – my own opinion might highlight a non-obvious issue, but never any more than that. A nominator's opinion doesn't carry any extra weight.
 * This isn't a content dispute. Just trimming a paragraph or two might have been, but here we're talking about an article being filleted of all encyclopedic prose, such that there's nothing left bar the record titles and a fail per WP:NOTDIR. It's quite hard to point the finger at why such an article should be deleted, when there's so little 'article' left to even delete!
 * I favour keeping the article, as it was initially. I cannot justify keeping the filleted article, as there's just nothing left. Mostly though, I don't believe individual editors should be blanking articles like this without going through AfD or similar discussion (Marvin Suggs too). That's too much like an "I know best and damn the rest of you" rejection of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * trimming, fileting, or going through with a machete to remove unsourced and promotional content requires no permission nor AfD. It is action that is specifically sanctioned by policy. If you dont like it, you may try and gain consensus to change policy or you may wish to be a part of some other project on the web that is not trying to develop an encyclopedia and thus does not have such requirements. And Mr. Dingley has been warned of creating such retaliatory AfDs -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally more constructive and collaborative to help to search for supporting sources, or even to add tags and ask for help from other editors, than to immediately start chopping material out in strict adherence with policy. No-one is saying that the rules are wrong, just that they can sometimes be applied in a more helpful way. And I really don't think threats and warnings, with well-respected and established editors, are a very good idea either. By the way, Jingle Cats looks very interesting. So, thanks Andy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2013 (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.