This is just pants.
It is clear that these are the reason for deletion,
not just some 'ideas to use as a springboard for your
deletion antics'.
Mark
--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No. It is a list of "Problems that may
require
deletion." Nowhere on
any deletion policy page, however, does it say that
the list is meant
to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy,
which actually
says "Blocking should not be used in any other
circumstances." The
deletion policy does not say that. The deletion
guidelines for
administrators say nothing about taking into account
invalid reasons
for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about
invalid reasons for
listing.
You are citing policy that does not exist.
If you want to change the rules, more power to you.
If you want to
engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.
But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for
deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy
me,
or that I'm not interested in' to it, and
try to
gain
consenus for it.
Mark
--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing
makes
> NO CLAIMS to be a
> "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list
you
> cite is a single
> entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about
> which page to send
> things to. It is less a list of critieria for
> deletion on VfD and more
> a list of things that are not speedy deletion
> criteria, and it's
> absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort
of
> declaration of the
> only reasons one can delete an article.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards
wrote:
>
>> 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
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org