Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Yourself Screening Tool

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 delete. The arguments by Hunter Kahn do not address the uncontested substantive problems with the article. Deleting unsalvageable promotional content in order to allow a neutral rewrite is standard practice. Sandstein 08:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check Yourself Screening Tool[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

highly promotional article , though on a worthy product. Almost all the article is devoted to the problems it hopes to solve, rather than the ostensible subject of the article. It needs complete rewriting, and the first step for that is to remove the existing PR-based article DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds to me the nominator is saying this article is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but that the article as it is written right now is problematic. If that is the case, it would seem AFD is not the way to go, per WP:RUBBISH, and that instead the article should be merely improved... — Hunter Ka hn 04:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is that it can be improved if it is fixable without complete rewriting--and I have fixed several thousand such articles in my 12 years here, but if it take complete or almost complete rewriting, it is better to start over, per WP:TNT (altho an essay, it does express the general view on a practical way) . From my experience, the best way of making the distinction is seeing if anyoneactually does rewrite it while it is at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems to me that the argument you are making here is one of the specifically listed arguments to avoid in AFD arguments. AFD shouldn't be used to encourage re-writes of articles of subjects you consider notable. Even per the essay you cite, WP:TNT, it seems the better solution than deleting it would be erasing the offensive content, reducing the article to a stub, then putting a template on it to encourage users to improve it. If it gets deleted, that will only discourage users from ever creating it again, since they will have seen it has already been deleted before. Given that the nominator himself asserts that the article subject is notable, I'm inclined to vote keep and encourage that they use more appropriate methods to encourage improvement... — Hunter Ka hn 02:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AfD is almost the only way to actually get articles rewritten. The page you cite is an essay, not policy, and the various things stated there in a definite tone are not that definite as they sound---they are followed in different degrees. 12 years ago, when I started engaging in these afd discussions, I would have argued as you did--at the time, we did not fully realize the dangers of letting promotional articles stay around in WP . It's not only that htey stay here as advertising, and even worse show up as authoritative in Google (that "feature" of Google wasn't there 12 years ago, either) , but they serve as the models for other articles. Promotional writers thing that if others have gotten away with it, so can they; good faith but naïve new ediors actually think that a promotional style of writing is what we want since they see so much of it here. If you think it can be fix, fix it. Now. If you cannot do it now, try it in draft space. But the one thing we should not do is leave such articles in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't want to just keep repeating the same arguments over and over, but suffice it to say, I profoundly disagree with your interpretation of what AFD is and should be (though I've seen others who agree with you before over the course of my 11 years here). And since you yourself have indicated this article subject is notable, I vote keep. — Hunter Ka hn 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Delete whatever article should be here, there's nothing that can be salvaged from this version. This is a PR essay /sales pitch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:21, 19 July 2019 (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.