"Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not
perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about
the subject of the article."
So in other words, in urgin people to check every AFD, the project
assumes good faith and poor judgement, intelligence (or both) on the part of
all nominators. that's even better.
On 7/13/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
Articles are not "uncontroversially
encyclopedic" when they being
brought up
for deletion because of their lack of
encyclopedic content or nature.
Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not
perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about
the subject of the article.
A
taskforce improving articles that don't have an AFD nomination would
be more
in line with your flawed vision of what the
project constitutes.
That's what the rest of Wikipedia is already working on. Also, why are
you so sure that it's Phil's vision of the project that's flawed? Last I
checked there were only four edits on the project's page, it's still
quite nebulous and open to interpretation.
But when
the project extensively mentions comabting what they see as
unnecessary
deletions in its intro and includes a direct link
to AFD, then it's
not a
resource for improving articles that need help
the most, but a project
for
making sure borderline articles get kept.
That's inclusioism.
Not all AfDs result in delete, some result in keep. This alone should
indicate that not all nominations are "necessary." And besides, whether
an article is "borderline" or not is itself a subject that can often be
debated.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l