Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Appeal deletion of Medical equipment page: new section |
|||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:I got the email as well. Didn't know about the Wikipedia thing though. @[[User:Keith|Keith]] might wanna check this out [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC) | :I got the email as well. Didn't know about the Wikipedia thing though. @[[User:Keith|Keith]] might wanna check this out [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Appeal deletion of Medical equipment page == | ==Appeal deletion of Medical equipment page== | ||
[[Medical equipment]] has some issues relating to manufacturer lockdown and repair which are important (right to repair is right to save lives) and which may be somewhat different from issues in other devices. This page appears to be the natural place to cover these issues. | [[Medical equipment]] has some issues relating to manufacturer lockdown and repair which are important (right to repair is right to save lives) and which may be somewhat different from issues in other devices. This page appears to be the natural place to cover these issues. | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
There is, as always, this disincentive to do anything to improve the page when it has a deletion notice. (No sense working on something that going to be destroyed.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC) | There is, as always, this disincentive to do anything to improve the page when it has a deletion notice. (No sense working on something that going to be destroyed.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
:Maybe @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] can give his take since he's generally the one who finalizes article deletion. | |||
:As for my opinion, the article is simply too vague to be useful. Creating incident articles would be significantly more effective to shed a light on bad consumer practice in the medical industry, instead of one article with a ton of empty headlines. The article was created 9 months ago at this point yet only has 2 paragraphs worth of information. I take that to mean there is little interest in working on articles in the medical industry, and it's clear most people would rather discuss tech companies. So "encouraging growth" is not relevant at all in this case. | |||
:The way to give fair weight to the issues in the medical industry is by creating more articles dedicated to the various incidents that have been reported on. A single master sheet makes it seem like CRW only cares about tech issues (of which there are hundreds of relevant articles) and only adds in a few things from other industries lumped into one page that people are unlikely to find in the middle of hundreds of tech articles. | |||
:Incident pages are not "less than" company or product pages. They're simply different types. I don't think it's fair to say the medical ventilators article was "demoted" when the change was simply to portray the issues more accurately. Once I've gone through and edited the article to be more extensive and accurately portray the issue at hand, I hope that your position might change on the matter. And thanks for bringing it up anyway even if we disagree. It is motivating me to get to that article more quickly (as soon as I finish some smaller changes on articles I'm working on currently). [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC) | |||