Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namak Issk Ka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Missvain (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namak Issk Ka

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Namak Issk Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft for the article topic is already under development: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Namak_Issk_Ka Noobie anonymous (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Noobie anonymous (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a valid reason for AfD. Histmerge should be done between this article and the draft. Onel5969 TT me 15:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly speedily. Topic is notable and nominator does not provide a valid rationale for deletion. The draftspace version was indeed created first, but that doesn't mean that its author has "first dibs" on having their preferred version of the mainspace article in place, whatever form that may take. Note that the draft author Unknownnreasonn had previously tagged the mainspace article more than once for both speedy deletion (for reasons similar to the above, reverted because this is emphatically not a valid CSD rationale either) and for AfD (reverted because necessary followup steps were not done). All parties are reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a battleground, and that the proper course of action is to discuss possible changes or compromises on the article's talk page rather than trying to get the "other guy's" version of the article rejected outright. --Finngall talk 18:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and failure to satisfy television notability.
      • There are conduct issues and content issues here, but AFD is a content forum.
      • This is a future television series. It does not satisfy general notability, and does not satisfy television notability because it does not have reception information (and won't for a week).
      • The best action would be to Draftify, but there is already a draft.
      • It appears, as noted by User:Finngall, that there is a race between two editors to get credit for the article, and both editors have made a false start in the race.
      • Both editors should be warned, but this is a content forum.
      • User:Onel5969 says that a history merge is in order. That is probably true, but the history-merged page should then be in draft space until the show airs.
      • The nominator has not made a case for deletion, but there is a policy-based case why this should not be in article space until the show airs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Robert McClenon, Don't disagree with your rationale, however, with an air date less than 4 days away, just felt that the 7 days of the AfD would not expire before the reason to draft was no longer valid. Onel5969 TT me 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unknownnreasonn: What we want is for the article to be of the highest quality possible, regardless of who is editing it. Dramadevil may have jumped the queue in this case, but in the end what matters here is encyclopedic content, not "justice". Neither you nor they "own" the article, and from what I see there are elements of your draft which can be incorporated into the mainspace version to improve it without throwing it out completely. Other editors may do this, and/or they may make their own improvements or additions. That's how Wikipedia works. Please understand and accept the advice from the more experienced editors who have taken the time to comment here, and do not hesitate to ask further questions. Thank you. --Finngall talk 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Finngall: so it's not wrong having two copies of the same page, I want to know if merge from draft to article happen so this existing article not deleted. Am I right? I know experienced editors better know than me I just asking about this. As you say don't hesitate to ask any question so this is I'm asking, please answer. Thank you Unknownnreasonn (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unknownnreasonn: There's not a lot inherently wrong with having two versions, but it's preferable to have just one. Admins can merge the histories of the two versions so that all edits to both appear on a single version of the article, so that the full history is available. --Finngall talk 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Namak_Issk_Ka&oldid=994603089"