John Lee wrote:
Eric B. and Rakim wrote:
1. There is no reason to delete any of the pages
there at all.
Copyvios already has a special page. And there is also already
candidates for speedy deletion and simple vandalism that is deleted
on sight.
Please provide examples. Speedy deletions are for contributions that
don't make sense. VfD is for those that do but aren't encyclopedic.
And "encyclopedic" is a subjective judgement where the deletionist
support a very narrow interpretation.
4. Articles about "non-notable" stuff
does not hurt Wikipedia. Since
noone cares about the stuff, noone will link to it and noone will
search for it and NOONE will ever see it!
A keyword search can easily bring up non-notable articles. When
somebody sees an entry resembling a blog posting, what will they think
of Wikipedia?
A person looking for "non-notable" articles can certainly find them, but
casual visitors would not be the ones making such searches. The "What
will they think ...?" question is nothing but a scare tactic. It is
speculative and based on no evidence whatsoever.
7. The
Wikipedia concept is that anyone can edit a page and that only
those who edits a page gets to determine what information goes into a
page. Its like "do it yourself cause you can't tell anyone else what
to do cause there is no way to force them to do it." Now that concept
doesn't work with vfd cause someone can say "uuuh.. delete unless it
is improved in a week.". That person basically forces those who care
about the article to write what they know about it or it will be
killed. It is not fair at all.
Well, honestly, tell me, what is there to write about someone's smelly
socks?
So what's the link to the smelly sock article, or is this just another
straw man?
If it's a notable article, it will be improved
anyway. Are you
suggesting we tolerate garbage just because the garbage's topic is
something notable?
Nobody has suggested tolerating garbage. You're just making that up so
you can have something to argue against.
Honestly, if I had to pick between deleting a
(hypothetical) article
on Ronald Reagan which is full of unrelated nonsense about doing drugs
or keeping it in the hopes somebody would improve it, I'd do the
former without skipping a beat. Having an article only gives the
impression to readers that we tolerate junk. I'd rather receive
complaints from readers that we don't have an article on Ronald Reagan
than complaints that our article of Ronald Reagan is useless, which in
turn will lead to questioning the credibility of other innocent articles.
Arguing about hypothetical articles is arguing about articles that don't
exist. You can go ahead and delete all the non-existing articles that
you want. If the Ronald Reagan article contained all your speculative
nonsense it would be fixed, not deleted. Why can't you treat the other
articles in the same way?
You are missing the whole point of VfD. The point is
to ask a wide
audience - that "thousand people" - "Is this article worth keeping, or
do we move it elsewhere/delete it?". The point of VfD is consensus.
Placing the request on the Talk leads to a very very limited audience
- how many Wikipedians read Talk pages on a regular basis? And
unitarily moving it is even worse.
What kind of wider audience? One composed of people who know as little
about the subject as you? At least those who respond on the talk page
will have some interest in the subject.. Consensus is hard work about
finding a solution that will please most people. A simple (or
simplistic) delete or keep solution does not leave room for consensus.
Ec