This is a great initiative. I've run across a few excellent articles
that were deleted -- by finding them through google searches and web
links, and discovering the target article was gone -- because they had
"only N ghits" and were on prod for 3 days --- or worse, rewritten
with more information and deleted speedily as recreations.
There should be a clear exception in the speedy policy on recreations
that exempts anything that is an attempt to improve on an article
deleted for lack of sources or non-notability.
SJ
On 7/13/07, Ben Yates <bluephonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly -- this is not an inclusionist project (and
certainly not a
"radically inclusionist" one); it has nothing to say about what topics
should be included and what should not. It is about improving
articles about topics that are uncontroversially encyclopedic and
includable because lately some people have been deleting them.
See Andrew Lih on the topic (and you don't see him pissed off very
often):
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/
On 7/13/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
generally, it seems to be a project built to do
what user:Alasnohn has been
doing for high school AFDs; dredging up a large amount of references from
non-independent sources and local sports coverage to try and salvage
articles that, because they are nn and useless except as draws for student
vandals, were unsourced previously and rightly nominated for deletion.
On 7/13/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It's yet another army-fantasy like project (think of countervandalism
> unit). But it's a good place where they can gather the terminal
> patients so we can go and help them die in peace instead of
> lenghtening their suffering instead of looking them by ourselves.
> Thank you for that
What heaping boatload of bad faith you guys are assuming.
The described purpose of the project is not "keep everything at all
costs!", it's "make things that might be deleted due to bad quality into
things that will be kept due to good quality." It explicitly limits
itself to topics where the _topic_ is a valid one to have an article on.
Is this not a worthy goal?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog -
http://wikip.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l