Talk:Burmese people in China

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the previous deletion discussion had participants that wanted to delete and restart the article. Original article had issues with WP:OR and many calling to delete per WP:TNT, myself included. Article has also been rewritten entirely and doesn't use text from pre-deletion article as far as I know. --EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone disagrees with the above then please look at the previous deletion discussion (linked above), the main reason that it was preciously was deleted was because it was unsourced and suffered from original research but this version is clearly different and cites a lot of reliable sources. I don't think that this should be a speedy deletion. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous template

this article was not "nominated for deletion on January 9, 2023". another article was. some people might want to say that the two articles have the same title, but having the same title doesnt mean they are the same article, so the erroneous template will be removed. RZuo (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a standard template placed on articles created at titles that were previously discussed for deletion. It's important to keep the documentation accessible to future editors, particularly if the article is ever considered for merging or deletion. If you have concerns or suggestions about the practice, you should take them to Template talk:Old AfD multi_signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

nothing (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Banners and buttons...) mandates the use of such a template. when the template is clearly wrong, common sense is it will be removed. ofc, that doesnt prevent anyone from still linking to afd of any other articles which may or may not be related to this article. RZuo (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by wikilawyering against a practice so common we have a bot that puts it into place. The template is not "clearly wrong", it documents a piece of this page's history that would otherwise not be easily accessible to readers. It would be slightly more accurate to phrase the text as An article at this title was..., but that's a change to propose at Old AfD multi's talk page. As an added argument for how such templates are useful, they are of significant value to researchers who study Wikipedia deletion processes, as they can be used to find articles that were previously deleted and used to study how Wikipedia consensus can change over time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

the bot literally asked for feedback on errors: "Adding {{old AfD multi}} for prior AfDs related to this article. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/NewArticleAFDTagger", and this is an error. i had wanted to blank the page the moment it was added, but i knew the article had to wait for the shitty review process so i let the template hang around for a little longer.

as for why the template was designed in such a way to not accommodate the obviously diverse scenarios, and why enwp fails to address this problem, i dont know and i dont care. (maybe someone has raised this point before me, who knows.) all it takes is to allow the template say "article(s) with the same title were nominated..." RZuo (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

the bot's owner is obviously smarter too. s/he wrote "AfDs related to this article" not "AfDs of this article". RZuo (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No, this article (Burmese people in China) was nominated for deletion. It was deleted to be rewritten, which it is now. Knowing this is one of the important reasons to keep this template in this talk page. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)