"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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l