Talk:Mediated stylistics
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Media stylistics page were merged into Mediated stylistics on 4 December 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Contested deletion edit
Maybe give an editor more than 6 minutes after creation before nominating for speedy deletion? --Sjgknight (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because... edit
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Slootio (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't finished it yet - I'm still working on it. Mediated Stylistics is a bona fide approach to analysis. It is cited in peer-reviewed articles in the UK and internationally.
This page should not be speedy deleted because... edit
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Slootio (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't finished it yet - indeed you seem to have marked it for deletion almost as soon as I started writing it. I'm still working on it. Mediated Stylistics is a bona fide approach to analysis. It is cited in peer-reviewed articles in the UK and internationally.
Contested deletion edit
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here) --Slootio (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, but it does seem a bit much to mark an entry - put together in good faith, and to representation a new and emerging area of academic research in the social sciences and humanities - for deletion within minutes of the site being up and running. How can the people who've judged it as 'deletable' possibly know so soon? I would suggest that there is no expert in the world who could judge so quickly and so confidently. The site is not yet finished, and I am currently adding references, theoretical and philosophical influences, current work, references, and so on. If the article as it will look when finished is potentially available for 'speedy deletion', then I can't see any consistency to the process - plenty of articles that exist on Wikipedia have less detail and rigor than the one I am preparing here.
- I'm inclined to agree that the tag was added too fast (as per comment above). I think it probably happened because people watch a list of 'new pages' and review as they come up. The problem with creating pages with only a heading (as you did) is that there's no guarantee the page will be fleshed out. Editors deal with a lot of spam, test edits, and (I suspect) creation of blank or nearly blank pages so there's a mass of new-edits to deal with. Obviously that's not what you've now created, but I hope it helps explain that the editors who tagged the article were likely acting in good faith too. To avoid the issue in the future you could create articles with more content to begin (don't click 'save' until some material is in there), or work on them in your WP:SANDBOX. Hope that helps. Sjgknight (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Media stylistics edit
They are WP:POVFORKS of each other. They cover the same subject. They both need a large dose of BRIMSTONE to eliminate all the original research, personal opinions, and editorializing. Merge. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)