255:-- I am especially bothered by the creator's statement that "So there are cases in which the creator has had to make the decision about which interpretation was to be represented in Geacron. Múzquiz acknowledges that "ideally other experts should have participated but it would have been impossible for them to agree" I think scholars will recoil against this claim ("experts surely will disagree so I will ignore them all") because it sharply decreases the validity and usefulness of the website, making it simply the toy of its creator rather than a source of knowledge. As far as I can tell no reliable independent source had endorsed it in any way.
422:
the approval of an AfC necessarily implies an objection to speedy for G11 or A7 or similar criteria is an interesting question we will need to resolve. I don't think it prevents speedy for things like copyvio or abuse that the orig. reviewer may have missed. More generally, I would support routine notification of the reviewer who approved the article as well as the creator when deletion process was started.
421:
I do not think it is wrong to decline a speedy on the grounds it would be better to discuss it here. Doing that does not in the least indicate approval of the article, just the opinion that it would be better if the community had a chance it see it more widely. I've done this fairly often, Whether
208:
probably notable--the sources seem adequate--but very highly promotional, to the point it would probably warrant a G11. Promotional features include, the extensive description of how the creator happened to get the idea for doing the project, the extensive quotes from the creator, making up about
212:
Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism to the extent that routine editing would not fix it is a speedy criterion, but we are certainly entitled to say that any substantial amount of promotionalism is reason why the article should be deleted, and remade by a more
209:
half the content; the section marked controversy is actually a section where the creator tries to defend himself against possible controversy in advance; the repeated use of the creators name; the space devoted to perfectly routine features of any such site.
386:, has edited the article both after the speedy-deletion was removed and again after the article was sent to AFD. On March 27, he contested the speedy deletion on the article's talk page. On March 29, he added another comment to the article's talk page.
322:
I have must have accidentally approved this, as I was working that day and likely confused this with another submission. Feel free to rewrite it, but I should have declined this as NPOV. Sorry about that, as I have no idea how that got past me.
213:
neutral editor if any should care to. (The reason would be the deterrence of promotional editing, and this is essentially the argument we use for speedy G5, creation by a banned editor, to deter sockpuppettry)
177:
277:
is the best fix. Please provide arguments for either the web site not meeting notability or arguments in favor of blowing it (the
Knowledge (XXG) article, not the web site) up and starting over.
130:
232:
388:
I am going to remain neutral in this AFD. This remark should not be construed as an endorsement or objection to either the speedy deletion rationale that of this AFD.
171:
374:
as the decline reason of "Speedy deletion declined. accepted at WP:AFC by User:Kevin
Rutherford, so deletion would not be uncontroversial" is no longer true per
137:
17:
401:
289:
483:
40:
192:
103:
98:
273:
bearing on whether the web site qualifies for a
Knowledge (XXG) article or whether this article is so hopeless that
159:
107:
341:
Don't worry about that too much, you know what they say about people that never make mistakes (those that never
90:
153:
479:
460:
447:
There is an argument for notability here, but as the nom observed, the article as written is hopelessly
375:
367:
36:
350:
310:
149:
185:
464:
433:
407:
383:
354:
332:
314:
295:
264:
244:
224:
94:
72:
448:
199:
397:
285:
260:
240:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
478:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
86:
78:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
456:
328:
65:
452:
274:
346:
306:
429:
220:
165:
390:
278:
256:
236:
124:
324:
58:
269:
The fact that the website is "simply a toy of its creator" has little or no
424:
215:
472:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
451:. This would seem to be a case where the only remedy is
371:
120:
116:
112:
184:
198:
305:Promotional crap. How did this get through AfC? --
455:. Too bad though. It looks like a cool website. -
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
486:). No further edits should be made to this page.
233:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
231:Note: This debate has been included in the
230:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
372:his decline of the speedy deletion
24:
378:'s comment immediately above.
1:
503:
465:03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
434:02:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
408:23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
355:08:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
333:20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
315:14:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
296:02:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
265:01:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
245:00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
225:00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
73:03:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
475:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
370:may want to reconsider
382:, the page creator,
345:anything... ;-). --
48:The result was
406:
405:
389:
294:
293:
247:
56:
494:
477:
395:
394:
387:
376:Kevin Rutherford
368:Mr. Stradivarius
325:Kevin Rutherford
283:
282:
203:
202:
188:
140:
128:
110:
70:
63:
54:
34:
502:
501:
497:
496:
495:
493:
492:
491:
490:
484:deletion review
473:
364:Clerical remark
145:
136:
101:
85:
82:
66:
59:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
500:
498:
489:
488:
468:
467:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
411:
410:
360:
359:
358:
357:
336:
335:
317:
300:
299:
298:
249:
248:
206:
205:
142:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
499:
487:
485:
481:
476:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
442:
435:
431:
427:
426:
420:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
403:
399:
392:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
321:
318:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
297:
291:
287:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
217:
210:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
135:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
75:
74:
71:
69:
64:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
474:
471:
444:
423:
418:
379:
363:
342:
319:
302:
270:
252:
214:
211:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
133:
67:
60:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
457:Ad Orientem
449:promotional
172:free images
347:Randykitty
307:Randykitty
480:talk page
237:• Gene93k
55:→ Call me
37:talk page
482:or in a
402:contribs
290:contribs
131:View log
39:or in a
419:Comment
391:davidwr
384:Celemin
380:However
303:Nuke it
279:davidwr
257:Rjensen
178:WP refs
166:scholar
104:protect
99:history
87:Geacron
79:Geacron
445:Delete
320:Delete
275:WP:TNT
271:direct
253:Delete
150:Google
108:delete
50:delete
430:talk
221:talk
193:JSTOR
154:books
138:Stats
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
461:talk
398:talk
351:talk
329:talk
311:talk
286:talk
261:talk
241:talk
186:FENS
160:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
61:Hahc
453:TNT
425:DGG
400:)/(
366::
288:)/(
216:DGG
200:TWL
129:– (
463:)
432:)
353:)
343:do
331:)
313:)
263:)
243:)
235:.
223:)
180:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
68:21
52:.
459:(
428:(
404:)
396:(
393:/
349:(
327:(
309:(
292:)
284:(
281:/
259:(
239:(
219:(
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
134:·
127:)
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.