On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can...
In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to decide.
This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
And you're complaining about this as an example of "deletionism"?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Hmmm, I know, it seems incredibly stupid that NOMINATING something for deletion would make an editor think you wanted it deleted. It's amazing what morons pass for Wikipedia editors Articles FOR Deletion--and people go around thinking it FOR deleting articles. It's just stunning. Simply stunning.
It was originally a speed delete, too, by the uncertain person who nominated it FOR deletion, based upon that editor's uncertainty if there was a COI or other uncertain reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan&diff=133...
To think, a moron assuming Articles FOR deletion means articles FOR deletion. It's just stunning, isn't it?
KP, resident idiot