This is lunacy. You are arguing that, although there
is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and
'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added to it
because there is no concensus, this does not in any
way indicate that non-notablity is not a reason for
deletion?
If that's really what you are arguing, then I don't
think there is anything that will convince you,
because you are clearly not interested in community
concensus building.
Mark
--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It also says nothing in the deletion policy about
criteria for deletion
on VfD. It lists some deletion criteria that must be
VfDed, but it
makes no claims anywhere to provide an exhaustive
list of valid reasons
for deletion.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Mark Richards wrote:
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!
http://vote.yahoo.com === message truncated ===
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!