On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P <kpbotany(a)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_Ca…
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(a)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=13…
To think, a moron assuming Articles FOR deletion means articles FOR
deletion. It's just stunning, isn't it?
KP, resident idiot