On 2/11/06, David Carson <dcarson(a)iinet.net.au> wrote:
I don't believe the nominator ever said it was
crap. He said it was a
non-notable neologism, and thus the _topic_ was not suitable for
Wikipedia (the topic was crap, if you like). This is a completely
separate issue to the quality of the article's content (which was
excellent, probably higher than 99% of the first saved versions of
articles).
Reminds me of my recent proposal on this list which scored a grand
total of one reply :) Quick reminder:
Split AFD into two halves:
Request for subject blocking: Community decides the subject is NN or
not interesting etc, deletes the page and prevents a new article being
created on the topic
Request for page wiping: Community decides the subject is potentially
interesting, but the current text is libellous, copyvio etc. Page is
hacked down to a stub, or wiped altogether (but not blocked).
Misunderstandings and confusion of this sort would be vastly reduced
if the nominator had to actually think for a second what he was
objecting to exactly.
Steve