Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvergate
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. MBisanz talk 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Silvergate[edit]
- Silvergate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Declined prod; WP:NOT a web host, nor a business directory. No third-party references. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reject as premature I declined the speedy, not prod, as I saw an underconstruction tag on it placed by the ed involved, & the article didn'tl ook altogether hopeless.. I think such tags should be respected for a few days when they aren't clearly obstructive. As it turns out one of the links given is from the major magazine in the subject & written by the ed in chief of the magazine. The author didn't know to format it accordingly, so I'm doing that for him. Articles need a chance to develop. Tagging an article of this sort for deletion four minutes after an article is started is in my opinion usually unconstructive, as is placing an afd in the presence of the underconstruction tag one hour afterwards. (I see the nominator remembers it as placing a prod; had he in fact done so, it would have been reasonable). And one of the refs in a signif. 3rd party reference from the leading magazine in the field--it was just not displayed right till I fixed it. DGG (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No opinion on the merits of this nomination, but I don't think it's premature. I think that Wikipedia articles have to meet standards before they enter the main article namespace. Userspace is for articles that aren't there yet; i.e. there should be no formal "grace period" for articles that can't hack it. Individual users/admins might extend that as a courtesy, but enshrining that as policy would have very ugly consequences. RayAYang (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not expecting perfection ab initio has been enshrined as policy — it being our Wikipedia:Editing policy — since 2001. It doesn't seem to have had the disastrous consequences that you allude to. Uncle G (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, perfection isn't required. But things like notability, verifiability, etc., should be present, even if not necessarily with all the footnotes. RayAYang (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking for verifibility has, ever since the first version of the verifiability policy that MartinHarper wrote in 2003, involved editors who think that something is unverifiable looking for sources themselves to check this. The same goes for notability, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. You'll find the procedure at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, now, but it, too, has been our procedure all along. Again per our very own Wikipedia:Editing policy, this is a collaboratively written project, and editors are not supposed to regard looking for sources when checking verifiability and notability, and indeed writing the encyclopaedia, as Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which precludes nominating an article after it comes out, if the nom feels the article doesn't satisfy our criteria. It seems (glancing at the discussion) that this article will be kept, but there are certainly articles that should, and are, nominated within seconds of creation, and I don't see anything wrong with that. RayAYang (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking for verifibility has, ever since the first version of the verifiability policy that MartinHarper wrote in 2003, involved editors who think that something is unverifiable looking for sources themselves to check this. The same goes for notability, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. You'll find the procedure at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, now, but it, too, has been our procedure all along. Again per our very own Wikipedia:Editing policy, this is a collaboratively written project, and editors are not supposed to regard looking for sources when checking verifiability and notability, and indeed writing the encyclopaedia, as Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, perfection isn't required. But things like notability, verifiability, etc., should be present, even if not necessarily with all the footnotes. RayAYang (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not expecting perfection ab initio has been enshrined as policy — it being our Wikipedia:Editing policy — since 2001. It doesn't seem to have had the disastrous consequences that you allude to. Uncle G (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability established the usual way. DGG thought's about the undesirability of bitiness are well worth listening too. WilyD 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per give an article a chance - DGG is right. Article was created today. Trying to delete an article so early-on only serves to bite the newbies. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many inquiries regarding demise of LGB addressed. Could use more details -- definately KEEP. Links to Wikipedia regarding this information. Wikipedia credibility very positive when current information is available. DGG is right., 13 November 2008 (UTC)←Ma.rocha (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2008 (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.