We deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
due to sourcing issues. It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing
issues ever being addressed. It was relisted and speedy kept. It
still has sourcing issues.
What is "big"? Where is the external source that defines "big"? What
sources are used to include the individuals concerned? No sources are
cited. The lead of the article is original research and the contents
is "phwooooar! look at the tits on that!"
It is always dispiriting when an article that reduces the average
quality of the project is kept in this way...
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
"Ryan Wetherell" wrote
> Just objecting to the PROD is too easy an
> excuse to remove it. It's not hard at all to give a sentence about
> why you think an article is important.
My story about PROD: User:Arthur Rubin stuck one on [[Hillel Furstenberg]] shortly after I made it. With some nonsense about 'no assertion of notability' and then some other nonsense about not meeting [[WP:PROF]]. As far as I can see, Furstenberg meets each of the six criteria in section 1 of WP:PROF. So my reason for objecting to a PROD on an article about someone who is a member of both the US and Israeli Academies of Sciences is that the thing was ludicrous. Please bear in mind the number of people with time on their hands.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Hi all,
I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then
the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author
of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in
order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed.
If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the
stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
reverted.
How does this sound?
"Ryan Wetherell" wrote
> On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then
> > the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author
> > of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in
> > order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
> > acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed.
> > If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
> > there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the
> > stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
> > reverted.
> >
> > How does this sound?
>
> I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
Would 'this is never a PROD in a million years' be an acceptable reason? It is how I have felt a couple of times. Bear in mind the tendency on the site for people to think that material should be deleted, if _they_ can't see what it is for. Whereas PROD should be for material that, in effect, no one without a direct and personal connection could see what it is for.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
I seem to have caused a bit of a stir on the AfD for the article Ghost
ramp. I commented that if the Keep advocates don't fix the
fundamental problems identified with the article at its previous AfD
two months ago - which are: no reliable source for the name, no
reliable source for the description and all the inclusions sourced to
maps and satellite photos, i.e. original research - then I will delete
it as original research.
Since the AfD was started there have been only three edits to the
article, and the only sources added are of the same kind. Am I really
completely off-base in thinking that direct interpretation of maps and
satellite photos is original research? I can't really see it as
anything else.
Ghost ramp is an interesting topic, but we do have these policies...
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
How is this not a violation of the WP:COI guideline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Unite&diff=prev&oldid=9673…
I guess if you donate enough money on December 27th to the Wikimedia
Foundation, you're allowed to create whatever you want about yourself on
Wikipedia. When I suggested that MyWikiBiz could make per-article donations
to Wikimedia, I was hissed out of the room.
Let the OFFICE spin begin.
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
Wonder if we'll get any calls about this:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kevinmaney/2006-12-26-wikinomics_x.h…
"The "company," as we've known it for almost a century, is about to go
the way of vinyl albums, floppy disks and perked coffee. It is about
to get wikified. Or starfished. Or cracked open like a beehive hit
with a baseball bat. Depending on whom you ask."
(It's a prerelease review of the book 'Wikinomics', which I expect
everyone doing press will be expected to be an instant expert on the
day of its release, Jan 3.)
- d.
It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is
grossly overused by many people, including me. Most editors simply
use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is
probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it
seems somewhat dishonest. Would it not be better, therefore, either
to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion
for people to use instead? I would suggest that a possibly way of
determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator
is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing
(>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the
article, it can be speedied. The only real disadvantage I see in this
is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
What do people think?
--
David
Hello,
An overriding concern in the community, as regards who should be able to
edit in Wikipedia, appears to me to be the avoidance of elitism. I strongly
agree.
The strong concern I have with editing in Wikipedia is the accountability of
the editor. If a person joins a community they are accountable to that
community as well as to anyone that community effects. And, simply because a
person is a volunteer¹ on a project does not mean they should be held to
any lesser standard than one who is not.
I believe anyone who wishes to make edits to Wikipedia should have a single,
individual, registered User Name, User Page and a Talk Page. With this,
anytime a person makes an edit, creates a change, in the encyclopedia, their
User Name is recorded with that edit. Accountability. Trackability.
Presenting to the confidentiality concerns: There should be no requirement
as to content on the User Pages they can be blank if desired. What matters
is the accountability & trackability of that editor.
Marc Riddell