Dear Sarah,
We obviously have very different views about these types of article. I think we both have the sense to know we will not convince each other, and I too do not want to argue the general issue here. But the obvious thing is to compromise on combination articles with 1 or 2 para graph sections for characters and stop fighting each other. The argument against merging was quite specifically that the nature & quality was so different there was no way of simply combining them. The result of trying to delete rather than merge is that people like me , who would be perfectly willing to get rid of the individual articles will instead defend them: I do not care about the separation into articles, but I do about keeping content. I encourage the hot-heads on my side to not try to defend too much, and accept if they can get good merges--perhaps you can do something of the sort also in a reciprocal way.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Sarah Ewartsarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin , where the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.
This is incorrect.
"the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted"
No, not all character articles were nominated. Notable characters such as Sally Fletcher, Pippa Ross, Charlie Buckton, Lance Smart and others were not nominated.
"should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. "
This was not the nomination rationale at all. The comment about some being very long and others being very short was just a description of the articles, not a deletion rationale (of course, it would be an absurd reason to delete). The nominator's deletion rationale was based on notability, reliable sources and written in an "in universe" style.
I'm not going to get into any debate here on en-l but please be more careful not to misrepresent AFD nominations currently in progress. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l