There's nothing wrong with deleting articles, as long as attempts have been made to clean them up, or solve their problem some other way. A lot of articles that are nominated for deletion can be rescued by renaming, merging or simply adding a line to claim notability.
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but take for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest sailor to cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to cross the Atlantic". Clearly that's crystal-ballery, but a mere Google search would've shown he already finished the trip at the time and that there was plenty of news articles to use as sources.
I'd like to see people do more research on their nominations and give more than just two words in their nomination reasoning. Sometimes I believe nominators are rushing their nomination.
Mgm
On 1/4/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
zero 0000 wrote
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Charles
Should be noted that deletionists are now pro-encyclopedists and inclusionists are pro-content
I can't agree to that definition. "Encyclopaedic" content is simply content presented in a particular style. IMO, one can write an article on a Pokemon character or a high school in an encyclopaedic manner.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l