Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The limit of the semantic web


 * 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: Deleted per snowbal clause. Creator's attempt to merge the article into Semantic Web has been firmly rejected. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The limit of the semantic web

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

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Corvus cornix talk  23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this page still threatened with deletion? The deadline was the 12th, and there’s no comment on the subject here. IMO this should be improved, not deleted; it looks like a useful addition, and I’d like to read it again tomorrow. If the objection is “Original Research” wouldn’t it be better to ask for references, and tag it thus? --Identityandconsulting (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's currently at Articles for Deletion, so yes, it's still threatened with deletion. And please don't add a new header in this discussion, it messes up the rest of the queue. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * created the article.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does that user come up with Feb. 12 as the deadline? This article was written today. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is apparently a repost. An article with the variant title The limit of The Semantic Web was, in fact, deleted as an expired prod on February 12. Deor (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as obvious POV/OR and merge any worthwhile content into Semantic Web --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced original research. Fails WP:NOR. Sting au  Buzz Me...   00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced original research that is unclear at best.Beeblbrox (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Deletion proposal: Is this page still threatened with deletion? It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Semantic Web (Skeptical reactions ). (Discuss)--Identityandconsulting (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with focusing on deletion is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve Wikipedia by making content are thwarted by people working to improve Wikipedia by deleting content! If those that delete content instead worked to improve content on Wikipedia, we might get featured quality articles twice as often than we do now.
 * Deletion proposal: Do we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work?

There are other alternatives to deletion that are more constructive, such as merging, adding onto stub artiles, finding sources, fixing wording, line-item deletion, or simple editing.


 * Someone comes along--often someone with no knowledge of the subject--and presumes that the article can never be expanded and will never have verifiable sources, and so he PRODs it.
 * The original editor removes the PROD tag and maybe makes a substantial edit, if he has time--but remember, the whole reason he only wrote a sentence or two in the first place is because he doesn't have more than a few minutes at a time to work on Wikipedia.
 * The individual who added the PROD tag then lists it on AfD, for the same reason he PRODded it.
 * Other editors recommend its deletion, on the grounds that it does not list any sources, makes no claims to notability, or is simply "too short to be worth keeping"

So give an article a chance. Unless it's a blatant speedy delete--such as nonsense, advertising, slander, or a copyvio--don't tag it speedy. And don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance--a week should be enough time--to add substance to the article and list sources and do everything else people tend to use against such short articles. You may want to consider using the expand tag. --Identityandconsulting (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD processes usually run for at least a week. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Deletion proposal: Is this page still threatened with deletion? This article or section has merged into Semantic Web (Skeptical reactions ).--Identityandconsulting (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Identity, I wouldn't start merging, moving it, recreating it on your userpage or the other attempts to keep the text somewhere here.  You are liable to get yourself blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author, Identityandconsulting is blocked.  --  Iterator12n   Talk  15:31, 17 February 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.