Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Support Policy

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

The result was: Obvious consensus to restore the redirects - POV forks. - Mike Rosoft 12:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support Policy

Two identical articles created by Rogerfgay; they have neutrality problems and are duplicate with existing pages. I have been bold and redirected them to Child support and Child support in the United States, respectively; creator has undone my edits. I don't want to be revert warring, so I am bringing it here. - Mike Rosoft 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. There are already existing articles on these topics; useful, verifiable information should be added there instead of creating new articles, imho. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and reopen debate on talk page, possibly through dispute resolution? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. or Redirect. User has WP:COI (has published anti-child support articles online) and has attempted on several occasions to advance his own (factually inaccurate) viewpoint on other child support pages. Material on this page is rejected stuff that he tried to introduce to the Child support article. Sourced pages on child support issues already exist on Wiki and these are unnecessary. DanielEng 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Mike's original research was not adequate, and I wish editors would not use delete tags merely to raise a question. That's what talk pages are for. The two new articles are stubs on subjeccts that do not duplicate any existing articles. The fate of existing article Child Support is being discussed on its talk page because its content is far too narrow for the title, and it duplicates material from other pages. Although there has not been such a rapid trigger finger on the delete process, deletion of the child support article has been suggested on its talk page. The article Child Support in the United States suffers from similar scope problems - i.e. it is not about child support in the United States generally. It's focus does not lend itself to an objective general review of policy but simply provides a specific agency pov. The new articles are intended to focus on the actual topic suggested by the titles - they will be on child support policy generally one article and specifically in the United States in the other. This intent is stated both on the stub article pages and discussion / talk pages of the new stub articles. I removed Mike's delete tags because no reason was given on the talk page and because he deleted the explanation from one of the article pages on the intent to separate the subject of the two articles. It therefore looked like a simple act of vandalism and I have issued a warning. I should add that DanielEng (above) is engaging in retaliation and has been reported for vandalism of child support related pages. Rogerfgay 11:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm obviously not going to respond to the above personal attack. However, I do want to clarify that I have never been "reported," blocked or warned for any sort of vandalism. In fact I am on the CVU. The supposed "vandalism" mentioned above refers to my restoration of the AfD tags to these articles, which were repeatedly deleted in violation of AfD policy. [1] [2] [3] [4] Feel free to browse my block log (empty) and Talk Page history if you wish; the only "warning" of any kind on my page originated with the above user and was an inappropriately used tag. DanielEng 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel. You deleted the warnings from your talk page, and left a message on my talk page explaining that you're within your rights to have deleted the warnings from your talk page. Rogerfgay 12:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have invited everyone to have a look at my Talk Page history. All edits to a page made at any time are recorded permanently in the history, whether or not a user deletes them from public view. The only warning of any kind anyone will find in my entire Wiki history is yours, which was inappropriate as explained and was deleted as per WP:VANDAL and WP:UP. I'd advise you to have one more read of WP:NPA. DanielEng 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination as unnecessary forks. These are redundant with existing articles (Child Support for example), poorly cited, and an the case of Child Support Policy it isn't even an encyclopedia article (in fact it is borderline incorrect usage of the article space); it appears to be a proposal for one --Isotope23 ^talk 12:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why all the non-fact based opinions? There is no overlap between the intended articles and the cited articles. child support should be on its way to deletion, and is otherwise a complete non-starter as an article on child support policy as intended. Rogerfgay 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a POV fork any way you look at it. There is nothing "intended" for these articles that couldn't be in Child support in the United States and child support. Even if you wrote an actual article with reliable sources at these namespaces, I would opine that the should be merged back to the existing articles. In this case there is nothing to merge.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Isotope23. Child support in the United States and child support should be covering the policy behind child support if they are not already. These also appear to be possible POV forks. · jersyko talk 12:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking over the battle to change the two articles so that they cover policy behind child support, since they are not already? There are people there who are extremely stubborn and willing to spend a lot of time battling to preserve the pov they have established there. And I have pointed out that the term "child support" means support of children generally - that focus on specific select government policies that aren't even comprehensive regarding government policies on support of children is far too narrow for the title. It has been discussed that the current material is already covered in other places - specifically in articles on laws and agencies in the few select countries chosen for child support (one of which is Child Support in the United States). An article on child support policy should be on child support policy. But that is still not general enough for the title "child support" which is mostly private - nothing to do with government policy. Rogerfgay 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. There is no excuse for creating content forks, particularly where they are POV forks or intended to evolve into POV forks. If the existing articles have POV problems, work on fixing the problems, not creating new forks to skew in a different POV direction. Oh, and BTW, the fork article people are aiming for is Wikipedia:Content forking, with abbreviations WP:CFORK or WP:POVFORK, not WP:FORK. --AliceJMarkham 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article per nominator and numerous comments above. -- The Anome 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. And this should really be handled through dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing: the first one isn't an article, but rather a suggestion, and the second one looks like it's covering territory more extensively handled in the existing article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INVITATION You are all invited to the talk pages of the articles being discussed here to discuss the reasons these articles should not be directed as suggested. I am pointing out here that what seems "obvious" may just be lack of information and insufficient consideration. Please state your concerns on the talk page, and feel free to investigate further before commenting so that you have at least a minimal frame of reference. Rogerfgay 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. Obvious WP:CFORK. Dreadstar † 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. POV or not, these are clearly forks. -- But|seriously|folks 21:14, 25 October 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.