Talk:Wolbong Market

Archived discussion with User:Trlovejoy

Hi Trlovejoy,

You recently tagged an article of mine (Wolbong market) with a speedy deletion tag stating that the article fell under Wikipedia:CSD#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I appreciate you letting me know on my talk page, however the article was deleted within 4 hours of your post, before I was able to even receive your message.

G11 states:

"Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

The article I created was only a 2-sentence-long stub article, properly sourced, stating what the market was, and where it was located. The only problem with neutrality that I could see was that I stated that the market sold "inexpensive" items which was an oversight on my part. I shouldn't have said that, but if that was what you based the deletion tagging on, it seems like simply editing the wording of the article would have fixed the problem. The article certainly wasn't "exclusively" promotional and would not have needed to be "fundamentally rewritten" in order to be neutral.

I've asked the administrator who deleted the article to allow me to work to improve the article. I would hope that in the future you are more careful about tagging articles in this way, and instead try to either improve them yourself, or ask the author to do so while allowing them a reasonable time limit to respond before tagging for deletion.

Thanks for your time, Rystheguy (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for taking the time to right such a long response. As you mention, the stub article was only 2 sentences, you have spent more time here on my talk page than you did yon the article. My apology if you feel the article was removed too quickly and/or in error. Please feel free to use one of the many resources for creating articles and guides. From creating Your first article to Starting an article, or using the the Article wizard these guides will be helpful for best practices. If you are really working to improve the page and context, I would suggest you consider adding:

{{under construction|comment=If this article looks to be promotional, kindly edit some of the content to avoid it. Do contact me at [[User talk:USERNAME|my user talk]] for any enquiries.}}

Again, best of luck I hope the resources help. TRL (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trlovejoy,

Thanks for your response. I'm not upset about the speed of deletion since that is what the speedy deletion tag is for. I'm unhappy with the careless method you chose to address what you determined to be a problem.

I'd like to address a few of your comments. First off, you said:

"As you mention, the stub article was only 2 sentences, you have spent more time here on my talk page than you did yon the article."

This is meaningless since the reason you tagged the article for deletion was because you believed it was commercial, not because of the length of the article. The reason the article was so short is because there is exactly zero English information on the subject. I'm using my limited Korean-reading abilities to make information that is currently available only in Korean, available to a wider audience. If a properly-sourced stub article exists, it allows people with better understanding of the Korean language to easily expand upon what I've created using the source information.

Secondly, your comment stating:

"Please feel free to use one of the many resources for creating articles and guides."

is unhelpful to someone who has created 70 articles so far without any problems and nothing but constructive criticism from reviewers and admins. This cookie-cutter response that you've copied & pasted to everyone above with similar complaints to mine seems lazy. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, please take time to at least create a thoughtful response to criticisms and try to provide feedback that is helpful rather than dismissive. It's very possible that not all of your edits are mistake-free and that you too have room to improve.

I would recommend that in future edits you follow the Wikipedia community recommendation to be bold and make the necessary changes yourself instead of taking the easy road and just nominating a perfectly fine article for deletion. Additionally, the article "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" would be a helpful read. This essay: "Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means" explains the "Ignore all rules" article and also has a helpful flow-chart at the bottom that discusses how the policy should be used. If your edits are not improving Wikipedia, then they are at best making no useful difference at all, and worst case, making the encyclopedia less useful. In the case of my article, you nominating it for deletion did nothing to improve the reliability of the encyclopedia and should therefore not have happened. Also, this: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is a useful read for how to use common sense while editing.

Finally, I'd recommend that in the future, you consider using this template:

{{Advert|article}}

as opposed to speedy deletion because it at least allows the original author to address the problem instead of erasing the work they've put into the article so far. That is unless of course the article is written in an "exclusively promotional" manner as outlined in CSD#G11. This is especially true when dealing with articles created by new editors. Since the comment you posted above is aimed at them, it's only appropriate that you take my advice and not bite the newcomers.

Thanks again for your time, Rystheguy (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion with Admin User:Tokyogirl79

Hi Tokyogirl79,

2 Days ago you deleted an article I made about Wolbong market in Ulsan, South Korea. I was notified about the page being marked for deletion, but I was unable to improve the article before it was deleted 4 hours later. I would like the chance to improve the article, since I think that it is a notable topic and an important tourist attraction. I realize that part of the problem could have been that I had stated that the market was inexpensive, and I suppose I shouldn't have used that wording and instead have been more neutral. Please, if I could continue to work on the article, I would appreciate it very much.

Thank you for your time Rystheguy (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I've redone the article to remove any neutrality issues and added more information and sources. I'm going to post the article again in the next few days if you don't have any objections. Thank you Rystheguy (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)