Subject: [WikiEN-l] Crap vfd nominations
I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened
with a block:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
Freehold_Circle
"Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft. Delete --JAranda | yeah
02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
Laurelton_Circle
"I don't normally get into the road wars on AfD, but this is a former
traffic circle, now converted to a traffic light. Its notability
derives
from the notability of the history of the traffic light. Delete. Chick
Bowen 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
Flemington_Circle
"This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a
village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
White_Horse_Circle
"Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete --Aranda56 01:26, 22 September
2005 (UTC)"
What the fuck is with people?
If a nomination is crap, explain why in the AfD. If your explanations
are convincing, people will vote to keep. If nominators notice that
their nomination has been buried by a near-unanimous string of keeps,
they'll be embarrassed and stop making problematical nominations.
This procedure has the great advantage in that it works and that it
does not making people angry thereby provoking counter-responses
directed at your manner rather than at the merit of the topic.
In _any_ AfD discussion, it is much more helpful to address the
_particular_ article under discussion than to pass blanket judgments
on an entire class of articles. Nominations that say "oh cmon its a
traffic circle" and "roadcruft" are not helpful. Neither are
responses that say "all traffic circles are notable." Even if you
believe that all traffic circles should be deleted or that all
traffic circles should be kept, neither of these extremes is a widely
held opinion and repetitive, strident assertions of these general
principles are not going to create a consensus. (Neither do
repetitive, strident assertions that there _is_ consensus in areas
where there actually is not).
When nominating a traffic circle, give reasons why _this particular_
traffic circle shouldn't be kept. Two of the nominations mentioned
above do this, although not in a very coherent way. When arguing that
an article on a traffic circle should be kept, say why _this
particular_ traffic circle is worth keeping. Is the article
particularly good? Do traffic reports in the city reference it?
The reason for doing this has nothing to do with The Principle Of The
Thing. The reason for doing it is that these techniques _work_.
(Another technique that works for keeping articles is to improve them
a bit _before_ entering the nomination discussion).
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at
http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/