RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Ekrem İmamoğlu

Ekrem İmamoğlu | Result: Goat (no consensus)

Ekrem İmamoğlu (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Article about a politician that is irrelevant to RationalWiki's mission. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
2. this contributes almost nothing to our mission, and I don’t think he has enough of a missional background to fix the article. Hence, delete. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. Article is about a politician very much relevant to RationalWiki's mission, as he is a very big figure in Turkish opposition and anti authoritarian politics. I would say that it is a good idea to at least update and expand the article, however. Ozzyboo (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Per. Not a harmful article to have either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

1. Leaning toward delete, because the article doesn't seem missional. As it is, it's just his election record. I don't know much about Turkish politics though, so I'm open to keeping it if @Ozzyboo or soneone can explain to me why this guy's important/missional enough to warrant a page. Friedman (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

   As it stands, I would argue that since one of RationalWiki's stated goals is to tackle authoritarianism, it would not be a bad idea to have an article on said authoritarian's main opposition leader. Ozzyboo (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

   Authoritarianism isn't as important as the other 3, and it has to be pretty important. As they said, they are not a PoliticsWiki and the Glenn Youngkin AFD is currently 9-5 in favor of deletion, even after efforts to improve it. Andrew5 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   Well, this isn't that article. Whatever is being discussed about it doesn't pertain here. I couldn't care less if it was 9-5 in favor of keeping it, doesn't tie into this matter whatsoever. Plus, who exactly defines "important" in this context? I would consider refuting and documenting authoritarianism to be a very rational thing to do. Ozzyboo (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   This article is also far lower quality. 9 references in bare links and borderline stub. It's quality is concerning. Andrew5 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   I may be wrong, but I don't think the typical convention for dealing with shoddy articles is to delete them. Ozzyboo (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   It isn't. However, it generally is used when there are additional missionally concerns, there is no basis for improvement, or it's been a stub for 6+ years. Andrew5 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   Quality isn't the issue. Being a stub (or not) isn't the issue. Both these things could be fixed by editing it. The issue is missionally. I see people talking here about authoritarianism - but the acutely article makes virtually no mention of this and most certainly does not focus on it. It's more about how many votes he got and how he got elected. Conceivably an article mainly focusing on this could be written, but I'm not sure how.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   I have encountered multiple AFDs on the lines of "stub for 8 years, let's delete this thing". Also, you can fix some things by editing, but you can't fix a bad base. That requires the article to be redone by scratch, which either requires deletion or a blanking for some time. Bad bases is a valid reason for deletion. Andrew5 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   The article on Turkish nationalism and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have been stubs for years as well. I haven't seen any AFDs for those yet. Deletion is a lazy choice for lazy people in this case. Ozzyboo (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

   The first one I called to be draftified, the second is no longer a stub. Andrew5 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

   Also, keep and improve over delete only applies if someone wants to improve. If no one does, welp...Andrew5 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

   Says who? I would be more than happy to. Ozzyboo (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

   If no one wants to improve, there is no reason to keep it. If you want to improve it, go right ahead and I might reconsider. Andrew5 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

   Yeah, if you're able to improve it, I'd definitely be willing to consider it. As it is now though... Friedman (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   And it would have to be a very significant improvement too, not just minor copyediting. Andrew5 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Ozzyboo Are you going to expand it in the near future or not? AFD's aren't open forever,and given the narrow consensus to delete, the amount of time you have is decreasing. If you're busy, pleae state that here so we can extend it or move it to draft space. Andrew5 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

   The consensus appears to be that there is no consensus, so the Goat wins and no action should be taken...aside from removing the AfD notice and closing this case. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Result?

I'm confused. How is the result "No consensus?. I see three to two for delete. "Goat" votes don't count either way.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume because Ozzyboo made such a case in favor of keeping, it was enough to tip the result into no consensus even though pure vote count is for delete, but if you want the actual reason talk to Cosmikdebris. Or you could open up another AFD. Cosmik wasn't biased, however, he was the nominator. Andrew5 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)