Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Player (2nd nomination)
- 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 no consensus WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Dragon Player[edit]
- Dragon Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This product lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:PRODUCT and GNG. Coverage only in primary sources by KDE (the parent company) and a self-published source. Recommend redirect to KDE or deletion of this page. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - the first AfD resulted in merge/redirect to KDE page in 2008. Maybe this needs to be deleted and salted so editors don't have to waste their time with this kind of stuff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong venue, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. AfD is not for a content dispute. This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion appears to cover legitimate arguments for deletion / past afd's, not a content dispute. Could you clarify what you see as a content dispute?Dialectric (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- What is there to clarify? There is no hint of a deletion argument here. What is the DEL-REASON that includes consideration of WP:ATD? Do you see WP:BEFORE used here? Where is the discussion of WP:MAD given the merge result from the first AfD? The OP uses the word "maybe" to identify his/her own opinion. This is not a deletion discussion and there are no arguments for deletion.
The "delete" contention is that editors should not make decisions about article content, so because they have been doing so, we should delete the article and salt it to put a stop to the content contributions. Since the OP avoids taking a position, what is left is trolling to editors who want to exact such punishment on content contributions, with a fallback position to use the AfD as an improper content dispute (redirect) discussion without any explanation as to why there are problems with the content edits subsequent to the previous AfD beyond the imprecise complaint that these contributions are "time wasting" "stuff". Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- What is there to clarify? There is no hint of a deletion argument here. What is the DEL-REASON that includes consideration of WP:ATD? Do you see WP:BEFORE used here? Where is the discussion of WP:MAD given the merge result from the first AfD? The OP uses the word "maybe" to identify his/her own opinion. This is not a deletion discussion and there are no arguments for deletion.
- The above discussion appears to cover legitimate arguments for deletion / past afd's, not a content dispute. Could you clarify what you see as a content dispute?Dialectric (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2017 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.