Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lasonchang/Tom Akeya

__NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

I've history merged this into Tom Akeya. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Lasonchang/Tom Akeya

 * – (View MfD)

no evidence of notability in his own right--the article, and almost all the references, is mainly about the general subject of Inuit ivory carving.  DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a page Tom Akeya, why delete the user space version and not the one in mainspace? They both use the exact same sources. Vexations (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect the user space page and the sandbox to Tom Akeya for now. The article in article space can be tagged for Articles for Deletion for notability.  If the article is kept, the redirects to the article are all right.  If the article is deleted, any redirects can be deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete only because it's a copy of the user's sandbox. Keep that sandbox. Notability is explicitly not a reason to delete someone's sandbox/userspace. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to Tom Akeya. Why would one start applying notability concerns to userspace subpages? A bio that focuses on Inuit ivory carving is not a reason to delete.
 * These pages were created in association with Wiki Ed/University of California, Riverside/Native American Art History (Winter_2020). Instructor user:Nstrathman.
 * Concerns include: WP:BITE; Do real world courses that ask students to writhe Wikipedia articles benefit the project?; Is the instructor a sufficiently experienced Wikipedian?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * a air number of real world courses have had students write poorly chosen articles, or supervised them inadequately; At least one or two seem to have chosen to specialize in fields where we were unlikely to accept article.  And one, a few years ago, was deliberately organized to promote a political bias., But I had not checked to see if there was actually a main space article--drafts duplicating main space articles have gotten more and more common, so I want to see what can be rescued here., I may not have investigated this one adequately DGG ( talk ) 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe by hanging out at MfD too much, I have a biased view of the problems newcomers have with writing new articles, but from hanging out at MfD and seeing many of these things come through, I am repeatedly inspired to say: Newcomers should not be trying to writ new articles, or new drafts, they should first find their Wikipedian feet by editing existing mainspace articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * and editing them in a substantial way, not just making the minimum number of trivial edits to be autoconfirmed.  DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy against biting the newcomers is not really applicable here. Courses that ask students to write Wikipedia articles are almost always contrary to the interests of the encyclopedia.  The students should not be bitten, but the instructors should not be treated as newcomers.  Even if the instructors are newcomers, the instructors should not be treated gently.  Courses in which students are expected to submit articles to Wikipedia are a threat to the quality of the encyclopedia.  I have been asked if I will accept a draft anyway so that a student passes a course, and we are not here to assist a student in passing a course that has misguided criteria.  I am not commenting on this particular course, but on course assignments involving Wikipedia in general, which are a plague that threatens the quality of the encyclopedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe I agree that new editors should not learn about Wikipedia by writing new articles, but most of the crud that we see at MFD is not due to editors trying to learn about Wikipedia by doing, but to editors trying to use Wikipedia for various sorts of self-promotion with varying degrees of cluelessness or cluefulness. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.