Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 swine flu outbreak/Table

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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW Mr.Z-man 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 swine flu outbreak/Table[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is not actually an article, it's a table intended to be transcluded in another article. It originally was a template, but got moved to the article namespace during the templates for deletion discussion. I'm afraid that was not a very good solution, as it just created a new problem. The article namespace is only for articles, not for subpages, see Wikipedia:Subpages which says "Except in "main" namespace (="article namespace"), where the subpage feature has been disabled in English Wikipedia..." and that a disallowed use of subpages is "using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". This is just that - using a subpage for content that's meant to be part of the encyclopedia (article namespace). This should probably be a template, or just put back into the main article... it's unfortunate the TFD was closed early in favor of a poor solution. Chiliad22 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close Per IAR and common sense. This table is constantly being updated and this is the only logical mechanical way to do this, and the consensus decision to do this was explicit it's only until the whole thing calms down a while after the outbreak burns out. rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD isn't being transcluded to the main article, so I don't think it's disruptive. The main article is highly visible, but this table is just seen by actual editors. I don't see how there's any disruption to the main article, which would be the only reason to "ignore all rules" to close this AFD contrary to policy. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said it was disruptive, but it's just kind of tiring putting procedure sometimes over overt common sense. rootology (C)(T) 17:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the article was moved from the template namespace because of procedure... faulty procedure, but still, why didn't people react so strongly the first time people proposed moving this due to procedure? --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There wasn't much time to object, root boldly acted. I really think that simply <noinclude'ing> the TFD tag would've been a better idea, to reduce disruption on the sensitive main article, and to allow the TFD to run its course. hindsight, they say. –xeno ^talk 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This and the main article are being inundated with edits. It makes sense to keep this table separate, to allow specific edits to be located more easily. It can be merged into the main article when the edit volume falls. --Oldak Quill 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:COMMON. Enough of this process wonkery, please. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Table of 2009 swine flu outbreak cases if we must, as subpages don't exist in articlespace. FWIW, I thought it was fine as a template. There is no need to strictly enforce every rule when there's a good reason not to. (Disclosure: I procedurally closed the TFD after rootology boldly articlefied the template) –xeno ^talk 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep On the Main article and the Template... No delete actions (including RFD) can occur while its there. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A deletion (of the template) already did occur, so I'm not sure what you mean. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:2009 swine flu, are you finished playing dumb? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do you have to make personal attacks? Especially when you are clearly linking to the wrong template. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm the one who wrote the words 'The Template' in my reason. I know which one I'm referring to. The fact that you are mistaken on multiple issues here, should not be seen as a personal attack. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the template was simple moved, not deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:2009 swine flu outbreak chart is a redlink and says '15:04, 27 April 2009 Rootology (talk | contribs) deleted "Template:2009 swine flu outbreak chart"' Clearly it was deleted, not moved. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That was the leftover cross-namespace redirect. –xeno ^talk 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The content was moved; the redirect was deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And if no one cares about procedure in a time like this, why did any of that happen? It was purely procedural, to keep something out of a given namespace. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely not true, it was done to get the obnoxious TFD template off our most-viewed page at the moment in a time of crisis. rootology (C)(T) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But now it's not there and you're still calling for an early close... --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes per WP:WHOCARESWHATNAMESPACEITSIN since we need it separate from the main page at this time. rootology (C)(T) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As you moved this to a different namespace, apparently you care. I'm just asking people give me a straight answer and stop acting like they don't care about the namespace, when in your case you made direct actions to change the namespace. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Speedy Keep" seems to be the straightest answer people can give and I do believe it has been so giveth--PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I proposed this solution at TfD and am aware of the guidelines about subpages, however this is a very unusual situation and WP:IAR comes into play to allow an unusual solution. This table is getting many many edits as is the article and the only feasible way to allow this to continue is to split this off for the time being. Wait until it has died down, then it can be reintroduced. |→ Spaully^₪† 17:37, 27 April 2009 (GMT)
- If it's so important to ignore all rules to keep this page, why did it even have to be moved from the template namespace? By this logic shouldn't it just have stayed there until things died down? --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably. –xeno ^talk 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, though I think this a more ideal solution. That doesn't change the growing consensus however. |→ Spaully^₪† 17:49, 27 April 2009 (GMT)
Speedy keep. Per reasons given above, and note that Wikipedia:Subpages is a guideline subject to "the occasional exception". -Paul1337 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - no real rationale for deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to be insulting? I quoted a guideline and no one is really denying it disallows pages like this. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:IAR and WP:SUBPAGES. A lot of people absolutely see a need for this. If you don't, that's fine. This is is an unusual situation and sometimes exceptions must be made. Please take the time to read the other guidelines or just use common sense instead of fixating on a single guideline in particular and being overly combative. Vodello (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say this is allowed per WP:SUBPAGES, but in 3 places subpages seems to disallow subpages in the article namespace, even saying "Articles do not have sub-pages". Instead of just claiming I didn't read the page, which I did, why don't you quote what you see on there that you think means it's okay for articles to have subpages? --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.