Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retest


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Retest

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Insufficient content for a standalone article &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as above.-Synchronism (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no part of our Deletion policy that supports those rationales. If articles are stubs with scope for expansion, we expand them.  We don't delete them.  If articles are duplicate articles we merge them.  We don't delete them.  There's plenty of scope for a full article on the subject of test-retest reliability &mdash; a subject that is covered in plenty of books, including pages 307–308 of ISBN 9781412924825 for example &mdash; and clearly this is a duplicate article at an alternative title.  When you see duplicate articles, Duplicate articles should be your first port of call, not AFD. AFD is not cleanup, and is not a way out of fixing an article yourself, with the tools in the toolbox that you, as ordinary editors, have full access to.  Please read, and follow, the procedure in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage when doing new page patrol in the future. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  StarM  01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't understand Uncle G's rationale, since this is nothing but a word which belongs at Wiktionary. I also object to Uncle G's harsh response and lack of good faith.   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  01:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand the rationale, then please read the very policy that is linked to in its very first sentence. Pay close attention to the section of that policy entitled "Alternatives to deletion" and what is written in the sub-section entitled "Merging" within that.  You are also either confused or not writing what you mean.  I do not lack good faith.  You might be thinking about someone else lacking good faith, and a third party accusing them of that, but no-one has in fact done that here.  (Unless you count what you yourself wrote.  But because I assume good faith I assume that either you misunderstand what the assumption of good faith actually is or that you didn't write what you meant, rather than that you are actually accusing me of not contributing in good faith.  &#9786;)  Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. There's plenty of scope for a full article on test-retest reliability. We already have that article, so why do we need this one? Oh, and yelling at people for not being omniscient about Wikipedia isn't productive. I'm glad we have a Duplicate articles, and probably a Not quite duplicate articles and probably a Admin's noticeboard/Duplicate articles, but I've not heard of any of them in the two years I've been here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is no more yelling than you are yelling when you write "Delete or Merge". (I'm assuming that you are not.  Perhaps you are.  &#9786;)  It is emphasis, one of the traditional uses for boldface.  And one doesn't need to be omniscient.  One simply needs to read Deletion policy, Articles for deletion, or the Guide to deletion, links to at least one of which one will have seen before finding out about how to nominate an article for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There may be scope for an article about this, but this isn't it. I would encourage Uncle G to remind himself of the content of WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I in turn encourage you to read what I actually wrote, rather than the misleading commentary on it. I made no assertion of any bad faith on anyone's part at any point, and was perfectly civil.  I did point out where deletion rationales have no basis in policy, explaining why, and, with emphasis, show editors where to go, and what tools to use, when they see duplicate articles &mdash; something that is already explained in numerous places, not least in the very first paragraph of Articles for deletion.  Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2008 (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.