Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somatics


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator.  NAC— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)'''

Somatics

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

Nominated for deletion per WP:DICT. Please expand the article (if possible) so that it is encyclopedic, and remove this afd when it is completed. &lt;3 bunny  05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. As the nominator implicity notes, it is possible for this entry to be made appropriate to an encyclopædia, but at present it is a dictionary entry. (However, I note that the nominator seems to propose the wrong sort of procedure here.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Annoyingly, I can't close this under WP:SK ground 1 because User:SlamDiego has !voted "delete". Nevertheless, I do recommend a speedy close.  Everyone so far agrees that it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article with this title; and so do I. The nominator and SlamDiego are both focusing on the current state of the article, which is an egregious failure to comply with WP:BEFORE.  At AfD, our role is to evaluate the article's potential state.  It is not appropriate to nominate something for AfD to try to force someone else to do a lot of work bringing the article up to scratch.  Improve it yourself instead. Therefore I recommend a snow closure as a nomination that fails WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, you're quite wrong. Since I've not nominated the article, I simply cannot have violated WP:BEFORE, egregiously or otherwise.  And, as a matter of logic and of procedure, to support a nomination to delete is not the same thing as to agree with the reason or motivation of the nominator.  I am not seeking to force someone to improve the article (I specifically noted that “the nominator seems to propose the wrong sort of procedure here”); I'm seeking to have an entry that is just a dictionary definition removed from article space, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  If it is removed by appropriate replacement, that is fine with me. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On WP:BEFORE: I also remarked on WP:PRESERVE, which is policy. If you agree that it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article on this topic, then would you also agree that this title should not be a redlink?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You began by accusing me of an egregious violation of WP:BEFORE, and noting that you later invoked WP:PRESERVE isn't going to remove the absurdity of the accusation. Further, WP:PRESERVE wasn't meant to contradict WP:DICTIONARY.  Your question is equivocal.  I certainly wouldn't agree with the proposition that any entry is better than a red-link so long as a proper entry could in theory be written.  If such were made policy, Wikipedia could be filled with a sea of entries that were nothing but plausible-sounding titles; it would almost perfectly fail its users.  Part of what is required of an entry is indication of “notability” from “reliable sources”.  Now, if you can persuade the community that I am a reliable source, so that my word that a subject is notable is sufficient, then I will be most pleased, and perhaps we can change my vote on this article.  But if you try to extend this status to <3 bunny, then my pleasure will be more than offset by my concern.  And if you propose to do this for even more editors, well, I cannot embrace that at all. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you at all. I think WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE both make it entirely clear that the thing to do with unsatisfactory content is to fix it, not to delete it.  I think I have been quite clear that this is my position, and I do not see how it is equivocal.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I said was equivocal, as you know, was your question. I can walk you through various interpretations if you'd like.  As to the rest of your latest comment, well, it's just bald contradiction without further argument. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the formal creator of the article I suppose I should say something. I originally created it as a REDIRECT when looking up information, and have no opinion on deletion: no objection, no firm support. I think the content of "Somatic disciplines" got moved here after I created the REDIRECT. Pol098 (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I nominated this for deletion is because I felt that the information here is insufficient to develop an article out of. I don't believe this violates WP:BEFORE, as a dictionary entry is not something that can just be transformed into an encyclopedic article. If necessary, delete the article first, then recreate it when it is in a better state. WP:PRESERVE acts on articles that have content that can and should be preserved. This is a dictionary entry. Also, as a clarification, I was not trying to force anyone to fix the article; I was merely trying to imply that if a fix is possible, then this article could still be worth keeping. &lt;3  bunny  21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, and I sympathise with it, but I am afraid that unless the outcome of this AfD is "delete", Wikipedia's content licencing system requires us to retain the contribution history so we can give due credit to the contributors. This may seem silly but our licences are rather clear. "Delete" is only an appropriate outcome if this title should be a redlink.  However, even if this article is only a dictionary definition, it should become a soft redirect to Wiktionary.  You see, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but our sister project Wiktionary is, and the convention is that we direct users to Wiktionary whenever a dictionary definition is needed. A soft redirect to Wiktionary is technically a variant of a "keep" outcome at AfD. In this case I am convinced that an encyclopaedic article could be written, and I am also sure that a soft redirect to wiktionary would be appropriate until such an article exists. On thinking about this some more, I shall boldly create the soft redirect now; revert me if you disagree.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the page in its current state (soft redirect) is permissible per Wiki guidelines, then I'll withdraw this AfD. &lt;3  bunny  17:23, 23 August 2009 (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.