Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Aqaba Container Terminal (ACT)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Port of Aqaba. I am closing but not familiar enough to be comfortable doing the merge. If any of the participants here feel comfortable, please go ahead and turn this into a redirect after. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aqaba Container Terminal (ACT)

Declined at AfC 9 times so far. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep This does seem to be an uncommunicative single purpose account, but that does not mean that the page can never be improved. Note that others can edit while in draft, if they so choose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Port of Aqaba. I would like to suggest to the several reviewers, and hear their response, the notion that the author should have been encouraged to add information to the article Port of Aqaba on every review. Leaving the author working alone in the dark did nobody and service.

Reviewers:

User:Fuortu?

User:Robert McClenon?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge and redirect to that target is perfect. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes. It's dump on the reviewers time again. Tell the reviewers that it is their fault that a single-purpose account, who ignored advice, wasn't given enough hand-holding. Sure. Tell the reviewers that, when the author ignores valid advice, they should have gone an extra mile to give even better advice to the SPA when the SPA already wasn't taking advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My own view is that I saw that the author had resubmitted, ignoring advice to provide references, and that I considered the resubmission a waste of the time of the reviewers. However, maybe some editors think that we are supposed to provide hand-holding to an editor who doesn't listen. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Maybe I will be in a more reasonable mood soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert McClenon, I am sorry to provoke crankiness, but your cranky response is valuable. My question is not to dump on reviewers, but to review the system and processes. Do reviewers look for submissions being suitable for a merge to an existing article? Should they? Should the AfC instructions better encourage and facilitate newcomers checking mainspace for articles that should include coverage of their topic? I definitely think so. This newcomer actually bluelinked the article that I think is the obvious merge target. I would be fantastic if these newcomers would actually update the neglected parent topic of their new topic. "Another relocation is also scheduled ...and it will be completed by 2014"!? This new editor is well placed to update the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated based on the submitter wasting our time. They evidently know about the merge topic having linked it! But no, they are here to push through a page on the exact title they want to promote. That is very telling as to why they are here - promotion not building an encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I understand that, the author may well be connected to the terminal, but for the health of Wikipedia, newcomers should be welcomed and directed to better contributions. This author did remove the problematic level of promotion. Why didn't they go to the port article? A guess is that as a newcomer engaged in the AfC system, they presume they were not yet qualified? I think the AfC system is dysfunctional, the biggest problem being that reviewers don't converse with the newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the reviews:

The earliest draft was too promotional. I think that version was fixable by cutting the promotion. If it were in mainspace, someone would do that, and it would not be deleted.

Several reveiwers challenge "notability" issues. Do all AfC reviewers understand that WP:N speaks only to stand alone articles, that notability questions don't arise if the topic is merged? A container terminal is a pretty narrow scope, isn't it obvious to consider merging to the port?

I disagree with the rejections for inline citations. The lede and history section are plain and simple, in-line citations are not required. Reviewers cited Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, and the text at that target is pretty clearly doesn't speak to the content in this case.

I think the lede and History section are more than sufficient for WP:STUB, and the draft should have been approved. I would cut the tables below. I note that the commentes above the lede, in reverse date order, are very confusing. The last comment says it is promotional, and cites NPOV, and this comment does not apply to the current version. Reviewer comments should go on the talk page. This is an old point of contention. Raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2017_4#Stop_posting_discussion_on_AFC_draft_pages.2C_use_the_discussion_page_instead, and I continue to think that I received all stupid responses. This draft is yet another example of all parties failing to work together, and review comments placed in a non-talk place is obviously a component in the usual failure of communication.

I think the lede section and History section should be merged into Port of Aqaba because it is all the same topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lede only with Port of Aqaba article and redirect. The history section contains uncited claims like "crucial" (twice) and "primary", and sounds promotional or company-written. I don't see how this could've been approved as a stub without some clear indication of notability. I don't see the blue link to Port of Aqaba in the draft and I don't think we can really expect reviewers to do extensive research or hand-holding. I can see how moving comments to the talk page might offer more opportunity for detailed explanation and interaction, if (and only if) the draft creator is clearly directed to them from the draft itself. If the process is somewhat discouraging for SPAs creating promotional articles about non-notable industrial operations that is probably ok. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the tone of the history section is slightly promotional, but I think tone is fixable and the detail unlikely to be contested. "ACT plays a crucial role in the Jordanian economy ... between countries in the region" could use toning down, sure, and yes, it really should be cited to a source. "Merge lede only" is fair. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge lede and redirect. SmokeyJoe, it really is a shame you didn't take Primefac's words of wisdom on board last time round. For someone who hasn't even edited ten drafts, your attack on AfC reviewers (again!) is simply quite astonishing. The AfC process is so much more than the simple 'template and move on' broad brush that you paint all AfC reviewers with- when we see that a new user 'gets' the system of talk pages and asks for help, we are more than happy to provide it- I've just approved a page after a month long discussion and improvement process with an keen new editor. We equally have promotional editors that can't be helped- who don't read the myriad of often hand crafted messages we leave them, who just resubmit their draft over and over and are simply not here to build an encyclopedia. This is one of them. Please get off your high horse and help us review some drafts- we could need the help. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what SmokeyJoe really thinks about AfC [1] but he is unwilling to do it differently. Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think AfC is hopeless, yes, misconceived and doing more damage than good. Patronising, bitey, and then insulting. Reviewers are mixed, but on average not good. I don't agree the author of this draft is NOTHERE. If Jcc could point to the good example I'll look, perhaps I am just seeing the worst. This one for example. I am a proponent of the welcome template, but I guess it doesn't work. Too templatey? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Port of Aqaba. The editor has been given ample opportunity to fix this. The only thing he really needs to do is take the sources he keeps putting at the bottom of the article and cite them inline in the fashion described by the help pages the reviewers have pointed out. He did take out most of the promotional prose that he tried on when he first went to AfC, but after that he failed to do what he was told he should do. Why didn't he open up the talk page and ask for clarification? Or just help? For an outside editor to take over and put the inline cites in would be like doing a jigsaw puzzle that might have some og the pieces missing. I haven't written a draft myself, but that's because (partly) I'm not done learning. I can do inline cites because I read the help files, I read the template files ({{cite web}} for instance) and I followed along with someone who was doing a draft. (I'm fairly sure the author wasn't aware I was lurking and watching the process.) Something I think I just noticed: why isn't the hidden category Noindexed pages showing up? Does this mean this page is getting indexed by Google etc.? — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 17:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having thought about the criticisms of User:SmokeyJoe for 48 hours, I agree completely with User:Jcc that SmokeyJoe's attack on the reviewers is out of line. I have seen cases where I agree that the reviewers have been cryptic and non-helpful, but this is a relatively extreme example of a case where the author could not have been helped. I have said before and will say again that, unfortunately, the rule of do not bite the newcomers has become a dogma, and, while an excellent guideline on its face, actually does more harm than good as applied. It causes some editors to go to bizarre lengths to berate other editors for being bitey, when occasionally new editors need to be bitten. This was an editor who needed to be bitten. Not every new editor, unfortunately, is here to improve the encyclopedia, and not every new editor is a potential resource. In this case, while I am inclined to agree that the draft should be merged, I want to thank User:Legacypac for the usually thankless job of biting a clueless tendentious single-purpose account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, once again you are choosing to talk about me and are skipping the important questions. Again, I am finding you very hard to talk to. Much harder, I note, that Legacypac. The questions are:
- Do you think that an AfC reviewer should, when rejecting due to notability, consider the possibility that the author should be advised to consider adding the content to an existing mainstream article? Port of Aqaba in this case. Note, this is not to criticise your failure to point to Port of Aqaba do this on your 26 September 2016 rejection as it appears both you and the author were probably unaware of that article at that time. The general question, should AfC reviewers only consider drafts to be drafts for standalone articles?
- Why did this editor need to be bitten? User:Fuortu's 8 September 2016‎ rejection was quite appropriate, the author needed that message. Was that the BITE you refer to? I don't consider that a BITE, so we need to clarify terms here. By your 26 September 2016, the author had removed the blatant pamphlet-style promotion. At that point, do you think BITING was still needed?
- Is the author now a proven resource? And further, a probable future resource with respect to this and other Arab ports?
- Rejecting for failing to format inline citations? From 12 December 2016, the draft was rejected four times for failing to format inline citations. Firstly, do you think this draft needed inline citations to be acceptable (separate from notability requirements)? Are reviewers (12 Dec 2016 onwards) confusing the requirement to demonstrate notability with converting listed sources to inline citation?
- If a draft meets WP:STUB, should it be approved?

If I may make further comments, which should not distract you from answering the above questions, what is with your last sentence. It is probably mixed sarcasm? User:Legacypac did not, in any way, in my opinion, bite the author. His nomination is simple, factual, objective, and at MfD a long-recognised good reason for a nomination. (Usually I am quick to agree, this draft is not typical). "Tendentiously resubmitted" is a good reason for deletion, but here is it countered by bad rejections, which is certainly not Leacypac's fault. For working hard to process the backlog of crud, Legacypac is often thanked, including by me. The grumpiness is directed that the community's self-contradictions. "Clueless"? The author did succeed in removing the blatant promotion, but fails to complete inline citation formatting? That is cluelessness? I think we should be talking "newcomer barriers", except that I strongly disagree that this draft was reasonably rejected on the basis of lack of inline citations. There is a lot of material contributed by SPAs, they are not supposed to be rejected merely for being SPAs. Also, my comments directed at the style of communication directed at AfC authors, being the style of templated comments in reverse time order at the top of the draft page, being an ineffective method of communication, has nothing to do with WP:BITE. I don't recall commenting on AfC biting, I obviously agree in speaking directly to someone when I think they are doing something wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New users are regularly encouraged to edit existing pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_already_existing has some examples. It's not the AfC reviewer's job to figure out how every Draft topic could be incorporated into mainspace exactly. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. And yet they don't.

The promotion rejection was right. The notability rejection fair, possibly could be improved. The inline citations rejections, no. Seven sequential rejections, you did good to bring it here, there is no better place to review these things, is there? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.