Ben Yates wrote:
Au contraire: there are uncontroversially encyclopedic topics whose articles are being brought up for deletion. That is precisely what prompted the formation of this group.
My bigger point is that the Rescue Squadron sidesteps the usual talk-page bickering and goes straight to the heart of things -- fixing the article. If, once the article is fixed, it still gets deleted, then so be it. The point is to demonstrate that some of these "borderline" articles are actually mainstream articles that happen to get parsed as nonencyclopedic /because of the way they're written/.
On 7/13/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Articles are not "uncontroversially encyclopedic" when they being brought up for deletion because of their lack of encyclopedic content or nature. 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. 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.
On 7/13/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I'm willing to practice euthanasia on them
I'm willing to block you for being disruptive if you delete an article on a notable topic that could have been improved just to oppose people trying to fix them.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Uncontroversially", says who? By definition, any article at AfD is having its suitability called into question simply by virtue of being nominated. If several people argue to delete, you can hardly say it's "uncontroversially encyclopedic".