[WikiEN-l] AfDs and deletionists rule!

[K P]

On 9/2/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> K P wrote:
> > On 9/2/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> On 02/09/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Today, Ja Rule was nominated for deletion because, "There are no
> >>>> references or sources to back up any of the information in the
> >>>> article."
> >>>>
> >>>> I still think it should be deleted, at least all content that is not
> >>>> referenced, after all, he may be a hoax.
> >>>>
> >> Ha.
> >>
> >> On 9/2/07, michael west <michawest at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can't we community sanction stupid Afds?
> >>>
> >> Penalizing people for "being stupid" is an interesting approach. Tell
> >> us more. We could make a list of all the stupid people can be, and
> >> accord penalties for each... :-\
> >>
> >> -stevertigo
> >>
> >
> > In all fairness this is one of the few times I've seen anyone make a
> > monumental mistake in a nomination and realize it, but that wouldn't
> > have made the post any fun.  Still it would taken less of his time to
> > realize that Ja Rule is a bit too well known to be nominated for
> > deletion for being non-notable, than it took to prepare the AfD.
> >
> > But, still, no penalties for people smart enough to realize when
> > they've acted stupidly.  And, Steve, I think it would be too long for
> > a list.
> >
> > KP
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> [[List of stupid things]], maybe? (Anyone actually creating that gets a
> troutwhack, especially since it'll be 50 gigabytes long and still far
> from completion.)
>
>
> Also, I fail to see how the occasional poor decision in nominating for
> AfD leads people to yell that it's broken. The AfD quite correctly
> attracted tons of keep opinions and was correctly snowballed as such.
> Looks like AfD worked just fine right there, a page that shouldn't have
> been deleted was never in danger of it.
>
> That being said, lack of sourcing -is- a serious issue. I had to remove
> a whole section from that article about "Disputes". Musician or not, it
> is a BLP, and we can't just have unsourced stuff about legal problems
> and the like in there.
>
>
But what was more important, removing the improper material from a BLP
or nominating it for deletion?  In my opinion, cleaning up a BLP.

Two of the recent nominations were as I mentioned before, DAVID CREWS
and the one with the absurdly long name, both made a little extra work
for people because the nominators couldn't have been bothered to at
least move them to a correct name and speedy the absurd spellings or
titles.

And, it's not an occasional poor decisions, there are poor decisions
all of the time, every day on AfD, nominations because an article
hasn't been edited in 2 months or something, nominations because an
academic isn't as notable as a pokeman card, and when the nominator
can bother to follow it for all this time, but can't spend a second to
clean it up.

I think you should be required to tag and do the minimum clean-up if
you can't be bothered to check to see if the subject is notable, at
the very least.

I also wonder if allowing people to nominate in in the first 30 days
or so is such a good idea.  I personally think all these people who
join and start AfDing right away are simply sock puppets.

KP