This is a great initiative. I've run across a few excellent articles that were deleted -- by finding them through google searches and web links, and discovering the target article was gone -- because they had "only N ghits" and were on prod for 3 days --- or worse, rewritten with more information and deleted speedily as recreations.
There should be a clear exception in the speedy policy on recreations that exempts anything that is an attempt to improve on an article deleted for lack of sources or non-notability.
SJ
On 7/13/07, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly -- this is not an inclusionist project (and certainly not a "radically inclusionist" one); it has nothing to say about what topics should be included and what should not. It is about improving articles about topics that are uncontroversially encyclopedic and includable because lately some people have been deleting them.
See Andrew Lih on the topic (and you don't see him pissed off very often): http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/
On 7/13/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
generally, it seems to be a project built to do what user:Alasnohn has been doing for high school AFDs; dredging up a large amount of references from non-independent sources and local sports coverage to try and salvage articles that, because they are nn and useless except as draws for student vandals, were unsourced previously and rightly nominated for deletion.
On 7/13/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
It's yet another army-fantasy like project (think of countervandalism unit). But it's a good place where they can gather the terminal patients so we can go and help them die in peace instead of lenghtening their suffering instead of looking them by ourselves. Thank you for that
What heaping boatload of bad faith you guys are assuming.
The described purpose of the project is not "keep everything at all costs!", it's "make things that might be deleted due to bad quality into things that will be kept due to good quality." It explicitly limits itself to topics where the _topic_ is a valid one to have an article on. Is this not a worthy goal?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l