- )
This page consists of wrong data (only). As I stated in the AFD discussion, this article is based on a wrong source - http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2015s.aspx - which is for summer chart only, not "End-Year", and thus there is wrong info. For End-Year chart the correct source is http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2015.aspx
After 3 months I see no changes; that page still exist with the same wrong information. I consider we can't keep here such articles in Wikipedia's main namespace. XXN, 17:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the deletion discussion, why can't you just update the page with the complete information? Hut 8.5 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't understand why should I do this? There are many other drafts and newly created articles that are below the Wikipedia standards and/or have any other major problems, thus being considered unkeepable and (speedy-)deleted. There is much to work on, and I don't have in plans (and time, interest) to do it. --XXN, 19:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are only deleted here if either they have a fundamental problem which cannot be addressed through normal editing, such as the article subject not being
notable. The only exceptions to this are a very limited set of very serious problems which make the article actively harmful, such as copyright violations. What you're describing here is a problem that can be fixed through normal editing. Wikipedia's deletion processes aren't intended to be cleanup tools. You obviously are willing to put in the effort of repeatedly trying to get the page deleted. Hut 8.5 20:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC) [reply- I strongly disagree. And I have valid reasons for this.
- Yet, this page HAS a fundamental problem, and not only one:
- It consists only of wrong data. No valid version exists in page history.
- There is not needed an update, but to completely rewrite the page (it was created already "outdated").
- And seems that original author is not interested at all in this ([1]).
- "Through normal editing" you can even transform a hoax (with a valid title only) into an acceptable article, or you can rewrite in English an article originally posted in a foreign language here on en.wp, but we are not doing such things — such pages are speedy-deleted (at least aren't kept for months and years)!
- That's why I continue to consider this article is not keepable in this form. --XXN, 21:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think this is not the right place to discuss this, may this page be converted to an AFD? --XXN, 21:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than spend more time arguing about abstract points I've just updated the list to draw from the source you linked to. Happy? Hut 8.5 12:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OK now. Thanks for work done and sorry for having taken your precious time (but it was your choice to do this:) ). I think this discussion can be closed. --XXN, 15:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse with no prejudice towards immediate renomination. There was no delete !vote so I feel overturning isn't warranted. Make the case again at AfD if you feel strongly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but chart does look wrong to me. I have asked the person who created the article if they would like to comment (or correct the article!).[2] Thincat (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -
I think this discussion can be closed. Nothing more to do here I guess.. —UY Scuti Talk 15:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
