The point is that there is no policy that says that
notability or not is a reason for deletion. I might
just as well get a group of morons to vote to delete
any article with the work 'green' in them. If there
was a vote to do it, why not? Well, because it's
stupid and damaging. The fact that you can get five or
six people to consistently do it doesn't make it
right. That's why there is nothing on the deletion
criteria which says anything about notablity.
Mark
--- Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Where is the policy consensus which says school
articles are not to be deleted? You can't point to
it, because it does not exist. Therefore, each of
these non-notable school stubs needs to be listed
individually on VfD. If you can get a consensus
which says that school articles are to stay, then
all of these schools will no longer be listed on
VfD. But until there is such an article, so long as
people continue to make articles about non-notable
schools and don't indicate anything in the article
which indicates that they ARE notable, they will
continue to be listed.
RickK
Mark Richards <marich712000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
1. Noone is questioning your right to revert (or
maybe
even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
2. There are specific people consistently deleting
articles that have real content. For example,
schools.
They have consitently failed to gain concensus to
delete all school articles, and so are listing every
school individually, counting on the fact that noone
can be bothered to vote on every one. The fact that
each one is often a stub at this stage makes it
easier
still to delete them, and allows them to make the
case
that there is precident for deleting more schools.
The point is that this is contentious, because not
only is real information about real things (not
'Peter
is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only admins
can even see what is was that was lost.
Mark R.
--- Delirium wrote:
I've only been skimming this thread, but I
think
people proposing
policies upon policies are missing what actually
makes wikipedia work:
people just do things that need to be done. When I
see a crap article
that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I don't
list it on a page and
request permission to delete it. I don't think
most
other people do
either (or even read this list or the millions of
policy pages).
It's true people should exercise discretion, but
if
an article that has
about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted, it's
not
like Wikipedia has
lost an irreplaceable masterwork. There is no
prohibition against
creating a new article in its place (and while
you're at it, if you made
it better it wouldn't even be a question). If
there
are specific people
consistently deleting questionable things, you
could
leave a message on
their talk page asking them about it.
Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted" VfD
articles seem to have
a similar misconception that we're deleting all
possible articles at
that location, while we're only deleting the one
that's actually there.
If there's an incoherent article with no useful
information at a
location of a famous person or entity, it's still
appropriate to delete
it. Someone can later create an actual article at
that location, which
then wouldn't be deleted.
But the main point is that Wikipedia works by
people
doing what they
think is reasonable, and talking to people who are
doing things they
disagree with, not by a bunch of policy
mumbo-jumob.
I've taken to not
even reading policy pages anymore, because there
are
literally thousands
of them, and most of them are incredibly long and
intricate. I don't
know what the hell deletion policy is anymore:
there
must be at least 10
pages on the subject, and 100 proposals to replace
it with a new set of
policies.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org