Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICCF national member federations

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 to delete, default to keep all. I've removed the {{inuse}} tags, as the pages are no longer being edited actively, and am prepending {{wikify}} instead. Sandstein 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICCF national member federations

edit
ICCF national member federations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a directory. This content is more appropriate for the organization's own website. The encyclopedic content for this organization is already addressed at International Correspondence Chess Federation. Also nominate for deletion the following sublists:

Accurizer 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the main list into International Correspondence Chess Federation. As for the rest it isn't really nice to AfD articles with an underconstruction tag when that tag was added yesterday so keep on the rest until we see what the author of those have planned. If they aren't properly expanded then bring them back so we can delete them. I don't see them as inherently bad ideas so there is no reason to delete them so fast. MartinDK 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it's better to have this discussion now, rather than after there are 50+ additional lists to deal with, which seems to be planned based on all of the redlinks. As for the timing of the nominations not being nice, if I were the author I would prefer to have this resolved before spending days creating more lists that may be deleted. Obviously I can't speak for the author but this was my motivation in making the nominations at this particular time. Accurizer 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You know when I look at these again, especially the England one which he has worked on the most, I am beginning to think you are right. I still want to see where he is going with this beyond making lists but the articles do indeed seem to have been created prematurely. Especially the fact that he is trying to work on so many at the same time concerns me given his very low edit count. Right now I am tempted to say move to userspace rather than keep on those articles. MartinDK 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep big potential for development. frummer 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea was that I will create the infrastructure and then the federations themselves will fill it with the data. Only the federations keep record of how it all began , the history and so on. It must take some time , until the federation will fill it with content. If the article is to be deleted so quickly , I think that i will change the order of what I do : I will stop (of course) to create new articles, and wait till the federations will give me the material and then I will try to post it again.

If then you will think that it is to be deleted - so be it.

I believe that the subject is interesting at least to some of the readers , but maybe I am wrong. --YoavD 10:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you, that was very informative. In light of what you just wrote I think the best situation would be for you to move the articles to subpages of your user page and work on them from there. I don't think it is a bad idea, in fact I think it is really great that you want to expand this apparently underrepresented topic here but keeping the individual country articles in main space right now probably isn't the best idea. I really hope it doesn't discourage you, it is meant as a help to give you peace and time to expand the articles without being concerned about someone trying to delete them. MartinDK 12:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, How, though, will these satisfy the WP:V and WP:OR policies? Being factual or interesting does not necessarily mean that these are appropriate Wikipedia articles. Accurizer 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment True but they are not inherently unverifiable or original research. If he moves them to user space we don't have an urgent problem and we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Its not like we are salting these articles after all, he has the right to try and improve them. The author is encouraged to read these policies along with WP:COI, all of which are reason for deletion. MartinDK 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user is new and needs yet more time to learn about writing up articles and improve these ones, he is clearly serious and able to bing them up to standard. He is a valuable contributor in the general chess field and we must remember WP:BITE. Give him more time to sort it out. No consensus for now. frummer 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like stated above the editor of these articles clearly has good intentions and I don't see the reason why they should be inherently bad ideas. The problem is that rather than leaving the editor prone to biting of the newcomer it would be in his own best interest to work on these from within his userspace until he has gained experience and expanded these articles to a level where they are no longer candidates for deletion. We should not bite the newcomer but on the other hand there is no reason why the newcomer should be left vulnerable to such biting. MartinDK 09:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that the updated version is nearer to what an article should be. I will wait now till you reach a decision, as it may be a waste of time to spend on other articles if the whole idea is incorrect. Thank you all for the encoraging words for the beginner!--YoavD 13:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are off to a better start now. First of all you need to stop putting your signature on the articles themselves. Second, they need some copyediting. WP:MoS is your friend. I still think you would be better off working on these in userspace rather than mainspace but as the articles improve that opinion might change. Happy editing! MartinDK 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the comments , specially for the manual on the style. I will read it and try to adjust according to the recommendations.--YoavD 11:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Thanks, happy to help out. If you have any questions please feel free to ask on my talk page. I promise I don't bite and I am always nice to new editors! To the closing admin: If these articles are deleted please move them to his userspace instead so that he can work on them from there. MartinDK 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added text in the ICCF Belgium in the same manner as the other federations. It might explain my view of how everything should look when it is finished. --YoavD 15:05, 9 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ICCF_national_member_federations&oldid=1137922223"