The Mangoe wrote:
On 6/10/07, Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/10/07, The Mangoe
<the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Since it isn't, it gets put through AfD to
force someone to put
up a real reason. I don't think there's anything wrong with
this, other than people write this kind of article in the first
place instead of providing the notability themselves.
If you have been nominating, for deletion, articles which you believe
could (or even should) be improved rather than deleted, please cease
and desist right now.
Well, as a rule I don't nominate AfDs, though at times I do go through
them. But even so, as a rule, I don't believe that articles can be
improved unless I know something about the topic which I believe is
notable and which the article doesn't include. For bio articles on
people in notable positions, it's not up to me to search for some real
notability about the person, and it is especially not up to me to dig
up some personal detail to pad out such an article.
If you don't know anything about the topic, and you don't want to do any
real work, that's good enough reason to leave it alone.
The thing about most such articles is that they
can't be improved.
What basis do you have for saying that if you don't know anything about
the topic?
I don't fight it personally, because every attempt
I've made to get
reasonable notability standards set up has been rebuffed by the
combined forces of the "it's useful" crowd and the "you want to delete
all my work" crowd. But I see lots of articles, especially bios, which
could only really be justified by some considerable research, which
might not turn up anything anyway. Someone putting a trivial,
notability-less article doesn't obligate anyone else to do the work to
prove its notability, and particularly in the case of BLPs I think
such articles ought to be speedily deleted.
So for you the only alternative to doing the considerable research is
doing no work at all. Those who would like to improve the 'pedia will
be satisfied to add whatever bit they can. They mostly avoid using
their own ignorance as a standard for notability.
Ec