Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/9

< Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion | Proposal

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

9 (duplicates of Wikibooks/Wikisource)

edit
"Any article that has no content beyond that in Wikibooks or Wikisource" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • "Foreign language articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project" is already a criterion for speedy deletion. That criterion was added before the sister projects existed.
  • The existence of those sister projects is precisely to host content that is informative but not encyclopedic - such as source texts. If an article is a source text, it should never be in Wikipedia (per WP:NOT). An article can be both in Wikisource and in Wiktionary, but they should not be identical.
  • For instance, an article on the history of paella would be encyclopedic. A recipe for creating paella would belong in the Wikibooks Cookbook.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

Votes

edit

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

Support

edit
  1. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:52 (UTC)
  2. Mike Rosoft 4 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
  3. Supporting on the basis of the test run as proposed... Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:44 (UTC)
  4. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 20:56 (UTC)
  5. These are much more sure than the Wiktionary one, still not sure about that. --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
  6. nixie 4 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  7. JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
  8. The option to send to VfD is always there. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 02:45 (UTC)
  9. Utter support. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
  10. Sensible. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
  11. I trust the admins' judgement on this one. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
  12. G Rutter 5 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)
  13. support, makes sense PeregrineAY July 5, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
  15. It can have a month of testing, at least. -Splash 5 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
  16. Duplicate content should be dealt with quickly before it diverges. -- Cyrius|✎ 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  17. Weak support — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  18. Support. A sister project article may be a valuable resource, but there's no point to outright duplication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
  19. Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 22:18 (UTC) Any transwiki'd article can be easily recovered from the sister project if someone later wants to create a real encyclopedia article.
  20. Support. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
  21. Support. Everything in it's place, and no duplicates. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)
  22. 'Weak support. Duplicates are bad in general.. so i'll say yes to this one for now. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  23. Support. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
  24. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  25. ABCD 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)
  26. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
  27. Support —thames 7 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
  28. Support - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
  29. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
  30. Support TheCoffee 21:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Peter Isotalo 17:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 02:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support Dan100 (Talk) 08:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support Source texts and study books/manuals aren't encyclopedia articles and if they're already on another project it's duplication. Installation of Windows doesn't warrant it's own article and the titles that do are better created from scratch with encyclopedic material. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. IanManka 05:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support EnSamulili 10:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. I object primarily because the wording of this item was added by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened. Interpretation of this guideline is left far too wide open. Just because something is transwiki'd DOESN'T mean we always delete such articles. Some articles, like Hollandaise sauce, started as a recipe and copied to Wikibooks, but grew into encyclopedic articles here as well. The importance of VfD for transiki'd items is exactly to determine whether the article can grow. The concept of this CSD proposal still needs a lot of work and clarification because it's a dangerous direction. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
  2. The proposal is way too generic. Each wikisister has its peculiarities. If a dish has name, it must be redirected to the generic article, not deleted. If there is no generic aricle, make a stub. If you are lazy to do this, go away, nasty deletionist. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
    • That is a good point. But note the wording has no content beyond that in the other wiki. People should always be encouraged to add information, and when they do it's no longer a speedy by this criterion. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:39 (UTC)
      • This CSD proposal is functionally useless. The revision history is "content beyond" that on the other wiki. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)
        • No, content is what's in the article. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:51 (UTC)
  3. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
  4. Per mikka Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  6. Similar argument as applies to Wiktionary. The solution to stub articles is to add good material, not delete. If that honestly can't be done, consider VfD. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
  7. We should be promoting the use of soft redirects where possible. This helps the reader (they find the information they are looking for), and it helps Wikimedia through cross-fertilization from one project to another. Pcb21| Pete 5 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
  8. Instruction creep - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. The Wikisource part makes sense, but I am not convinced that all Wikibooks are non-encyclopedic, and have seen no arguments to that effect. In the paella case mentioned above, cleanup would be preferable to deletion. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:14 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I voted support for the wiktionary version of this, but wikibooks is already verging on the encyclopedia's territory, and articles there have far more potatial for expansion than dicdefs. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Plenty of information at Wikibooks is encyclopedic, e.g. the wikibook on U.S. Constitution and Government. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 05:13 (UTC)
  12. Strongly Oppose while pure duplication between the wiki projects shouldn't be encouraged, part of a wikibook would often make a very good basis for an encyclopedic article (and visa versa). Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Stewart Adcock. Sietse 6 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. A single proper place for each bit of information is a fallacy; data is infinitely copyable and frequently more useful in more than one location. Further, encyclopedic stubs don't have to start as more than content also on another Wikiproject if the subject is worthy. Unfocused 6 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Verbatim copies from Wikibooks can be encyclopedic. Nathan J. Yoder 6 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
  16. Oppose; note, however, that verbatim copies of source materials (that is, Wikisource stuff) can already be transwiki'd and deleted. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Similar to Angela's alternative for Proposal 10, perhaps a template similar to {{wi}} can be created, except for Wikisource. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
  18. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  19. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Stewart Adcock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:24 (UTC)
  21. Oppose VFD needed in these cases. Nohat 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  22. So I can copypaste any article's content into Wikibooks and then delete it? Whoa!  Grue  7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Agree with Grue. David | Talk 7 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. There are plenty of things like this that need the exposure of VFD to be expanded or rewritten as encyclopedia articles. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Needs to be considered on a case by case basis with VFDs. Too many of these might be good candidates for expansion, not deletion. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
  26. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  27. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. VfD should decide. --Canderson7 18:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Not well thought out, as per Grue. Grace Note 02:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Don't delete it, complete it. -- A Link to the Past 09:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Dsmdgold 14:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Shanes 06:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Too vague. JuntungWu 14:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Belongs at VFD. Casito⇝Talk 02:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. See my comments on Proposal 8. It's too bad they didn't separate Wikibooks and Wikisource. Then, my vote might have been different for Wikisource. Eh, what's you gonna do? Superm401 | Talk 13:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Oppose- Grue does have a point. Maybe modify to prevent that sort of thing? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

edit
  1. Changing vote to oppose in protest of User:Radiant!'s vote-tampering. This election is no longer legitimate. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
    I think it might actually be a referendum (or at least a plebiscite). I would urge you to judge the proposals on their merits, rather than on their supporters and detractors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
    It was more because if the referendum is illegitimate, any policies arising from it are as well. But my concerns have been answered satisfactorily, so I am changing my vote back. — Phil Welch 6 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
    No problem with changing it back - but have you considered that some articles on Wikibooks that turn into a Wikipedia article are notable, and would apply to speedy deletion? -- A Link to the Past 21:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    So what? All this criteria does is allow for single-handed transwikiing and deletion of the pre-transwiki article without going through the red tape of VfD. Obviously, if in that process the admin finds the topic encyclopedic, he has the prerogative to write a stub. And even if he doesn't, that doesn't stop someone else from coming along to write a stub. — Phil Welch 04:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If a lot of them aren't a problem, then they shouldn't be a criteria for speedy deletion. Let the unsalvagable ones get VfD'd. -- A Link to the Past 04:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/9&oldid=1089443711"