This is just pants. It is clear that these are the reason for deletion, not just some 'ideas to use as a springboard for your deletion antics'. Mark
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
No. It is a list of "Problems that may require deletion." Nowhere on any deletion policy page, however, does it say that the list is meant to be exhaustive. Contrast with the blocking policy, which actually says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances." The deletion policy does not say that. The deletion guidelines for administrators say nothing about taking into account invalid reasons for listing. Votes for deletion says nothing about invalid reasons for listing.
You are citing policy that does not exist.
If you want to change the rules, more power to you. If you want to engage in an act of Wiki-disobedience, go for it.
But don't pretend the rules back you up on it.
-Snowspinner On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Mark Richards wrote:
Not at all, it is a list of valid reasons for deletion. I invite you to add 'things that annoy
me,
or that I'm not interested in' to it, and try to
gain
consenus for it. Mark
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
No. I'm arguing that the list you are citing
makes
NO CLAIMS to be a "list of valid reasons for deletion." The list
you
cite is a single entry in a lengthy table in deletion policy about which page to send things to. It is less a list of critieria for deletion on VfD and more a list of things that are not speedy deletion criteria, and it's absurdly revisionist to present it as some sort
of
declaration of the only reasons one can delete an article.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Mark Richards
wrote:
This is lunacy. You are arguing that, although
there
is a list of valid reasons for deletion, and 'non-notablity' has consistently NOT been added
to
it
because there is no concensus, this does not in
any
way indicate that non-notablity is not a reason
for
deletion? If that's really what you are arguing, then I
don't
think there is anything that will convince you, because you are clearly not interested in
community
concensus building. Mark
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
It also says nothing in the deletion policy
about
criteria for deletion on VfD. It lists some deletion criteria that
must
be
VfDed, but it makes no claims anywhere to provide an
exhaustive
list of valid reasons for deletion.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 23, 2004, at 12:11 AM, Mark Richards
wrote:
The point is that there is no policy that says
that
notability or not is a reason for deletion. I
might
just as well get a group of morons to vote to
delete
any article with the work 'green' in them. If
there
was a vote to do it, why not? Well, because
it's
stupid and damaging. The fact that you can get
five or
six people to consistently do it doesn't make
it
right. That's why there is nothing on the
deletion
criteria which says anything about notablity. Mark
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
> Where is the policy consensus which says
school
> articles are not to be deleted? You can't
point
to
> it, because it does not exist. Therefore,
each
of
> these non-notable school stubs needs to be
listed
> individually on VfD. If you can get a
consensus
> which says that school articles are to stay,
then
> all of these schools will no longer be listed
on
> VfD. But until there is such an article, so
long
as
> people continue to make articles about
non-notable
> schools and don't indicate anything in the
article
> which indicates that they ARE notable, they
will
> continue to be listed. > > RickK > > Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote: > 1. Noone is questioning your right to revert
(or
> maybe > even delete) 'Peter is gay'. > 2. There are specific people consistently
deleting
> articles that have real content. For example, > schools. > They have consitently failed to gain
concensus
to
> delete all school articles, and so are
listing
every
> school individually, counting on the fact
that
noone
> can be bothered to vote on every one. The
fact
that
> each one is often a stub at this stage makes
it
> easier > still to delete them, and allows them to make
the
> case > that there is precident for deleting more
schools.
> > The point is that this is contentious,
because
not
> only is real information about real things
(not
> 'Peter > is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only
admins
> can even see what is was that was lost. > Mark R. > > --- Delirium wrote: > >> I've only been skimming this thread, but I
think
>> people proposing >> policies upon policies are missing what
actually
>> makes wikipedia work: >> people just do things that need to be done.
When
I
>> see a crap article
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo