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
>>>> 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
=== message
truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around