Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactics
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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tactics[edit]
This page needs to be scrapped and begun again. It could not be less coherent or informative, since it is wholly unstructured and uses circular definitions. Dave1898 11:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - valid topic. Just needs a major cleanup. Davodd 11:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've turned Tactic into a disambig. page and suggest that Tactics be moved to Tactic (method). Then rewrite per nom. PJM 11:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Sure it needs a major overhaul, but does not mean it has to be erased. grafikm_fr 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — I'll assume good faith on the part of the nom., but really this should have been dealt with through cleanup rather than AfD. :) — RJH 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assumption of my good faith is touching. I find that far too few articles are deleted, rather than too many. It is preferable that the word tactics return to the ignominy of being a red edit link, and so offer someone who knows something about it the chance to create an entirely new article; cleanup should be for articles with superficial problems, not for articles that have no good points at all. The refusal to delete poor articles is a weakness of Wikipedia, not a strength. Dave1898 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Charmed I'm sure. Obviously I disagree with the approach of blasting every page that doesn't immediately live up to some arbitrarily high standard. Wikipedia is still very much a work in progress. :) — RJH
- Still, the point RJH made is a valid one. Bringing this to AFD wasn't really necessary. Placing a clean-up or expert tag on the article would have been the proper way to go. PJM 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously, but tag appropriately (which I will do shortly). AfDing articles on notable, valid and encyclopedic subjects which are just badly written goes exactly against the stated AFD policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Georgewilliamherbert 01:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, the point RJH made is a valid one. Bringing this to AFD wasn't really necessary. Placing a clean-up or expert tag on the article would have been the proper way to go. PJM 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
| Problem with page | Solution | Add this tag | |
|---|---|---|---|
Article needs improvement
|
List on Wikipedia:Cleanup. | {{cleanup}}, or preferably a more-specific tag. | |
| Article needs a lot of improvement | List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. | {{attention}} |
- Keep, but needs clean-up. RexNL 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but definitely needs some cleanup. Shouldn't be deleted as the topic is valid. Wstaffor 01:47, 19 April 2006 (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.