Ah examples of pure crap deletions? This article has been nominated for deletion because it's too short and doesn't include any trivia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Airlie
"No biography, trivia, and birth date about him and it's too short"
It's about an actor, and required only one click on imdb to find out whether or not the actor was notable enough for an entry--instead, the article is up for deletion because some editor is a deletionist.
KP
On 6/5/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Ah examples of pure crap deletions? This article has been nominated for deletion because it's too short and doesn't include any trivia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Airlie
"No biography, trivia, and birth date about him and it's too short"
It's about an actor, and required only one click on imdb to find out whether or not the actor was notable enough for an entry--instead, the article is up for deletion because some editor is a deletionist.
Well, all the article says about him, literally, is that he's an American actor. And all that IMDB has is a list of films he's been in. The trivia thing is pretty stupid, but I don't know what the article can say besides listing his films.
On 05/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Ah examples of pure crap deletions? This article has been nominated for deletion because it's too short and doesn't include any trivia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Airlie
"No biography, trivia, and birth date about him and it's too short"
It's about an actor, and required only one click on imdb to find out whether or not the actor was notable enough for an entry--instead, the article is up for deletion because some editor is a deletionist.
Well, all the article says about him, literally, is that he's an American actor. And all that IMDB has is a list of films he's been in. The trivia thing is pretty stupid, but I don't know what the article can say besides listing his films.
It's incredibly disingenuous, if you look at the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Airlie&diff=135883498&a...
On 6/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It's incredibly disingenuous, if you look at the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Airlie&diff=135883498&a...
I begin to wonder how many people systematically vandalize articles prior to deleting them or sending them to AFD (but do it in a less transparent way than this particular hoodlum did).
—C.W.
On 05/06/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It's incredibly disingenuous, if you look at the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Airlie&diff=135883498&a...
I begin to wonder how many people systematically vandalize articles prior to deleting them or sending them to AFD (but do it in a less transparent way than this particular hoodlum did).
In a lot of cases (BLPs especially, but not exclusively) people delete what they see as dubious rubbish first. I understand it's best to note this on the AFD itself, though.
- d.
On 6/5/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It's incredibly disingenuous, if you look at the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Airlie&diff=135883498&a...
I begin to wonder how many people systematically vandalize articles prior to deleting them or sending them to AFD (but do it in a less transparent way than this particular hoodlum did).
—C.W.
Awesome! He signed on as an IP to nominate it for deletion, removing content first!
Who keeps telling me there are no such thing as deletionists?!
KP
On 6/5/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Who keeps telling me there are no such thing as deletionists?!
Deletionists.
—C.W.
On 6/5/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Who keeps telling me there are no such thing as deletionists?!
Deletionists.
—C.W.
Dang, I'm not ever playing darts with you, there'd be no room in the bullseye for anyone else.
Here's some more good ones, including a couple of nominations by folks not sure an article should be deleted, and one by an editor who thinks an article shouldn't be deleted--yes, nominated by an editor who thinks it shouldn't be deleted. Got a good one along the lines of [[Rock climbing]]--still my personal favorite AfD nomination.
More off target deletionist AfDs
Instead of discussing article quality and lack of sources on the article's talk page:
"This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can...
In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to decide.
A quick google and scholar search turns up all sorts of information on the subject, but the nominator couldn't be bothered to do that--actually less work than the nomination for deletion.
Here's another deletionist, he didn't have to state which criteria for deletion the article met, because it was obvious to him!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%...
Nominated because it did NOT SEEM to merit an entry--not because it didn't merit an entry, mind you, because it didn't seem to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eu...
Here's a good one, [[User:Haemo]] is nominating an AfD that even he/she doesn't have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted--in other words, this user is a deletionist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashlea_Evans_%2...
Here we go, a well-known organization (although possibly not as well known as [[Rock climbing]] when it was nominated for deletion) nominated for deletion by a deletionist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Society_for_Cre...
Here's an editor who nominated an AfD based upon his dislike of the news media being able to decide what's notable!!!! Morals and ethics? Who cares when we want to rule the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_J._Devl...
It get's better, nominated for deletion even though the nominator thinks it should be kept, and gets speedily kept--now that's a singular use of editoral time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_5...
KP
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can...
In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to decide.
This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
And you're complaining about this as an example of "deletionism"?
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can...
In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to decide.
This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
And you're complaining about this as an example of "deletionism"?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Hmmm, I know, it seems incredibly stupid that NOMINATING something for deletion would make an editor think you wanted it deleted. It's amazing what morons pass for Wikipedia editors Articles FOR Deletion--and people go around thinking it FOR deleting articles. It's just stunning. Simply stunning.
It was originally a speed delete, too, by the uncertain person who nominated it FOR deletion, based upon that editor's uncertainty if there was a COI or other uncertain reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan&diff=133...
To think, a moron assuming Articles FOR deletion means articles FOR deletion. It's just stunning, isn't it?
KP, resident idiot
Much though I agree with KP in almost all of this, I disagree about putting articles up when unsure, or when there seems to be nothing substantial there, or when one suspects a hoax. I think it perfectly reasonable, when one sees something unlikely and wants to call it to attention, or when one see something one thinks questionable and isn't sure what rule applies; the thing to do is to ask--to ask one another individually--and I answer and ask such queries daily--or to ask the community.
I've sometimes done it; I've sometimes suggested it--and I'm an inclusionist myself, most of the time. But I do not accept that any particular WPedian or even admin is able to understand everything, and I am not under the delusion that I am an exception. I recognize this as a community project, and I recognize that others have a right and responsibility to decide. I have made a few really stupid mistakes of my own, and even apart from that, I expect to be correct most of the time, but not always.
afd should be treated as an opportunity for discussion and improvement of articles. I am not sure why it hasnt been renamed when the other SfDs have been.
On 6/5/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can...
In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to decide.
This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
And you're complaining about this as an example of "deletionism"?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Hmmm, I know, it seems incredibly stupid that NOMINATING something for deletion would make an editor think you wanted it deleted. It's amazing what morons pass for Wikipedia editors Articles FOR Deletion--and people go around thinking it FOR deleting articles. It's just stunning. Simply stunning.
It was originally a speed delete, too, by the uncertain person who nominated it FOR deletion, based upon that editor's uncertainty if there was a COI or other uncertain reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan&diff=133...
To think, a moron assuming Articles FOR deletion means articles FOR deletion. It's just stunning, isn't it?
KP, resident idiot
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Much though I agree with KP in almost all of this, I disagree about putting articles up when unsure, or when there seems to be nothing substantial there, or when one suspects a hoax. I think it perfectly reasonable, when one sees something unlikely and wants to call it to attention, or when one see something one thinks questionable and isn't sure what rule applies; the thing to do is to ask--to ask one another individually--and I answer and ask such queries daily--or to ask the community.
I've sometimes done it; I've sometimes suggested it--and I'm an inclusionist myself, most of the time. But I do not accept that any particular WPedian or even admin is able to understand everything, and I am not under the delusion that I am an exception. I recognize this as a community project, and I recognize that others have a right and responsibility to decide. I have made a few really stupid mistakes of my own, and even apart from that, I expect to be correct most of the time, but not always.
afd should be treated as an opportunity for discussion and improvement of articles. I am not sure why it hasnt been renamed when the other SfDs have been.
On 6/5/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can...
In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to decide.
This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
And you're complaining about this as an example of "deletionism"?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Hmmm, I know, it seems incredibly stupid that NOMINATING something for deletion would make an editor think you wanted it deleted. It's amazing what morons pass for Wikipedia editors Articles FOR Deletion--and people go around thinking it FOR deleting articles. It's just stunning. Simply stunning.
It was originally a speed delete, too, by the uncertain person who nominated it FOR deletion, based upon that editor's uncertainty if there was a COI or other uncertain reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan&diff=133...
To think, a moron assuming Articles FOR deletion means articles FOR deletion. It's just stunning, isn't it?
KP, resident idiot
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Yes, last time I thought I knew about something, then wasn't able to find much to confirm what I thought I knew, I asked another editor to investigate the subject (a smart 16-year-old who got crap at RfA for being 16), she couldn't find anything and suspected it of being a hoax, so I nominated it for deletion (well, someone did, I couldn't find the instructions for doing a nomination), aexplaining that I didn't know if it was a hoax, and explaining what I and the other editor had done to try to figure it out, and the article was deleted.
I don't get the feeling that this is what is going on in AfD, though. People are simply finding articles, somehow, on obscure topics, outside of their scope of knowledge, and nominating them to be deleted without looking into it any further. There are simply no end of ways to finding someone more competent on a topic than you yourself are--find them, ask them about it. But, for some reason, this is far removed from the mind of the deletionist.
I think there's some power in deleting articles or something, and that's what's really going on.
KP
On 07/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't get the feeling that this is what is going on in AfD, though. People are simply finding articles, somehow, on obscure topics, outside of their scope of knowledge, and nominating them to be deleted without looking into it any further. There are simply no end of ways to finding someone more competent on a topic than you yourself are--find them, ask them about it. But, for some reason, this is far removed from the mind of the deletionist. I think there's some power in deleting articles or something, and that's what's really going on.
Admin goldfarming. If you want to level up, getting known as an AFD regular is a good way to get !votes.
- d.
On 6/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't get the feeling that this is what is going on in AfD, though. People are simply finding articles, somehow, on obscure topics, outside of their scope of knowledge, and nominating them to be deleted without looking into it any further. There are simply no end of ways to finding someone more competent on a topic than you yourself are--find them, ask them about it. But, for some reason, this is far removed from the mind of the deletionist. I think there's some power in deleting articles or something, and that's what's really going on.
Admin goldfarming. If you want to level up, getting known as an AFD regular is a good way to get !votes.
When such nominations cause problems or serious ill will during debates, I certainly don't hope it helps someone through RFA.
On 07/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Admin goldfarming. If you want to level up, getting known as an AFD regular is a good way to get !votes.
Now there's an idea. Register an account, rack up a pile of edits with AWB and participate in a bunch of deletion discussions, and then sell the account to the highest bidder... any bets that this is happening already?
On 6/9/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 07/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Admin goldfarming. If you want to level up, getting known as an AFD regular is a good way to get !votes.
Now there's an idea. Register an account, rack up a pile of edits with AWB and participate in a bunch of deletion discussions, and then sell the account to the highest bidder... any bets that this is happening already?
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
Maybe that was the purpose of the account that edited the article then nominated the article for deletion based upon the article missing what he had just removed from it....
I just can't imagine a less desirable item to put up for bid than a Wikipedia admin account. Pay to be an administrator on Wikipedia?
KP
On 6/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I just can't imagine a less desirable item to put up for bid than a Wikipedia admin account. Pay to be an administrator on Wikipedia?
KP
Sure people are less likely to question your link placement.
On 09/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I just can't imagine a less desirable item to put up for bid than a Wikipedia admin account. Pay to be an administrator on Wikipedia?
Horses for courses :-) I couldn't possibly imagine paying money to, er... upgrade my berserker to level twelve magical whatnots, or whatever it is people do in MMORPGs....
K P wrote:
On 6/9/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 07/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Admin goldfarming. If you want to level up, getting known as an AFD regular is a good way to get !votes.
Now there's an idea. Register an account, rack up a pile of edits with AWB and participate in a bunch of deletion discussions, and then sell the account to the highest bidder... any bets that this is happening already?
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
Maybe that was the purpose of the account that edited the article then nominated the article for deletion based upon the article missing what he had just removed from it....
I just can't imagine a less desirable item to put up for bid than a Wikipedia admin account. Pay to be an administrator on Wikipedia?
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You'd be amazed at how many people somehow think it would be the coolest thing in the world. I honestly don't know why you'd pay for an admin account. If you want to get flamed on a daily basis, USENET and any number of web forums are absolutely free. But some people think admins have some type of mythical ability to do whatever they like, and block anyone who dares question them.
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Hmmm, I know, it seems incredibly stupid that NOMINATING something for deletion would make an editor think you wanted it deleted. It's amazing what morons pass for Wikipedia editors Articles FOR Deletion--and people go around thinking it FOR deleting articles. It's just stunning. Simply stunning.
My problem is that you complain about deletionists, about people who want solely to delete articles, and then the example you cite is someone saying "uh, might be worth keeping, I dunno". Not quite the hardline KILLITALL sort of person...
...or is simply even contemplating bringing an article to AFD viewed as the act of some kind of crazed deletionist vandal now? If so, I think this polarisation has gone on a bit too long.
You might want to pick less silly-sounding examples, is all.
(AFD, incidentally, is so named because it used to be Votes For Deletion, and that was felt silly. Have the other *FDs stopped being "- for deletion" now? Maybe we should call it "article inclusion discussions", or somesuch)
On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/0 This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
Steve
On 6/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/0 This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
I think Kelly Martin, myself and a few others pointed out this problem one or two years ago. At the time Kelly was pushing for AfD to be renamed to something more focused on discussion of article quality. As I said then, AfD is basically the low-end counterpart to FA. People ignore things like peer review because there's no real action that comes out of them - how much attention does your article get if it's tagged with a notability tag? From my experience, not much - at least, that's how it's been with PR where there's even a centralised list of articles with summaries of concerns about them.
The basic problem is, people put articles on FA and AfD when they want discussion about them, because our other processes for outside input on articles don't work when there's no end objective in sight.
Johnleemk
On 6/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/0 This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
Steve
Yup, again, title the project Articles FOR Deletion, then yell at folks who think it's a project FOR deleting articles.
After all, some folks may be unsure, but no one is nominating articles they think should be kept.
I like how my comments get called "stupid" but my initial reply was censored by the list monitors--posts calling other posters stupid or their comments stupid should be censored first, this would mean that flaming nasty replies to being told your comments are stupid don't have be monitored, because they're not sent. Or maybe it was an admin calling my comments stupid, ala the infamous douche bag episode.
KP
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
After all, some folks may be unsure, but no one is nominating articles they think should be kept.
Actually this has unfortunately become the standard procedure for discussing merges and the long-term prognosis of any topic of a previous deletion review.
—C.W.
On 07/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
Yes, it can be overused. But it is also a legitimate tool, when you do honestly feel that the topic may not be useful or appropriate. And when it's obviously a keep, there's nothing wrong with closing and delisting the AFD to avoid wasting any more time.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page.
The problem is that if the article *is* a suitable candidate for deletion, the chances are this won't work - if the article is something inappropriate dropped in, there may well be no-one actually watching the article - no-one caring enough to go to the extent of being in a position to see your comments.
Not the most efficient of systems.
Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
I find it interesting that even when someone explicitly says "what do people think?" they're not allowed to *mean* it. Could we try assuming that not all people are card-carrying deletion obsessives, please?
[I have seen it asserted in this debate that people go around just looking for articles to delete. I do find that a rather surreal idea - what, they spend hours hitting random-page?]
Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
I find it interesting that even when someone explicitly says "what do people think?" they're not allowed to *mean* it. Could we try assuming that not all people are card-carrying deletion obsessives, please?
[I have seen it asserted in this debate that people go around just looking for articles to delete. I do find that a rather surreal idea - what, they spend hours hitting random-page?]
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
"You might want to pick less silly-sounding examples, is all."
I would love for AfD deletionists to provide me with some, in between the rampant uncertainty about what the article is about, the nominating [[Rock climbing]] for deletion, and deleting text to create a short article then nominating it for deletion for being a short article and missing the text the nominator just deleted, I'm hard pressed to find the less sill-sounding examples.
I hadn't considered the sitting around and hitting random page, but now that you offer it, yes, that would explain a round of deletions a while ago by one editor who knew nothing about the topics he nominated for deletion and nominated article entirely outside of his range of topics, and articles that hadn't been recently edited. All the articles were on obscure scientific topics that had few google hits, but were pretty standard fair, and most were speedily kept.
But, yes, that is what I suspect he did, and it rather bothered me trying to think of how he came up with this funky set of deletions.
What do people think is sometimes sincerely asked, but it's not usually by the same editors who haven't researched the topic to even find out what it is. When I posted the possible hoax I followed a prior example by another editor who had searched for the topic, linked to his searches, suggested it didn't belong, and asked others' opinions.
I suspect there is not a lot of thinking going on, it's just tossed up for deletion, hoping someone else will do the thinking.
KP
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/0 This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In this particular case ([[Coşkun Can Aktan]]), a discussion on the talk page likely wouldn't have accomplished much. The last human edit before it was sent to AFD was in November 2006, and that edit included adding the {{notability}} concern.
Sending it to AFD, however, established that the person in question was, indeed, notable, and brought attention to the article which has been significantly improved over the course of the deletion discussion.
On 6/7/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/0 This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In this particular case ([[Coşkun Can Aktan]]), a discussion on the talk page likely wouldn't have accomplished much. The last human edit before it was sent to AFD was in November 2006, and that edit included adding the {{notability}} concern.
Sending it to AFD, however, established that the person in question was, indeed, notable, and brought attention to the article which has been significantly improved over the course of the deletion discussion.
On the other hand we have Turkish editors you could have asked to look it over, and we have a solid group of economics editors who could have looked it over. That's what I do, ask someone to look over an article. It requires less Wikipedia time from people who don't have it.
I just think the forced working on an article that isn't as bad as a lot of the crap on Wikipedia (look at this before an after, lately I'm doing musicians for some reason) is not in the best interests of all editors concerned. Aktan is well-known enough that eventually someone would have got around to it. Meanwhile, look at what this article looked like before I eviscerated it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ithaka_%28musician%29&oldid=12...
There's so much crap, though, why force me to work on this particular article, Atkan, just because it's on your agenda? That's what it amount to, imo. Meanwhile, I have an important article I'm writing on a major and current topic in the news that Wikipedia doesn't have even a stub on. I personally think my writing that article is far more important than Aktan's article.
This reminds me, I have a Turkish film director stub that needs some work, namely translating the titles of the Turkish tv shows. Sinan Cetin made one of the funniest movies I've ever seen--I would have rather been working on his stub than Aktan's, also.
KP
I sympathize. I want to write some articles on major omitted academic people in fields I know about, but I find myself completely occupied in rushed writing of articles for those that are challenged, even if the existing article is good enough as it is. I've rewritten a few on people whose main work was in languages I did not know, but which had just enough material and reviews and other commentary in English to try to show the notability. I sometimes succeeded, but someone more appropriate could have done a much better job--and there was no real need for the rush except the constraint of the AfD, because the positions asserted made a reasonable prima facie case for notability.
But, as for many other articles, those who first wrote them could have done a better job. I have frequently had the experience of asking an obviously interested editor who was clearly still on WP, & who clearly had access to the necessary material, to improve the article to prevent deletion, and had them ignore it.
Anyone can edit, unfortunately, means that anyone can edit, no matter how irresponsible or incompetent. KP and I & the few dozen similarly inclined can't help them all, but if all of the hundreds whose main interest is in deleting gave a hand at improving, we would get a better WP than if they did deletion only. DGG
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/0 This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In this particular case ([[Coşkun Can Aktan]]), a discussion on the talk page likely wouldn't have accomplished much. The last human edit before it was sent to AFD was in November 2006, and that edit included adding the {{notability}} concern.
Sending it to AFD, however, established that the person in question was, indeed, notable, and brought attention to the article which has been significantly improved over the course of the deletion discussion.
On the other hand we have Turkish editors you could have asked to look it over, and we have a solid group of economics editors who could have looked it over. That's what I do, ask someone to look over an article. It requires less Wikipedia time from people who don't have it.
I just think the forced working on an article that isn't as bad as a lot of the crap on Wikipedia (look at this before an after, lately I'm doing musicians for some reason) is not in the best interests of all editors concerned. Aktan is well-known enough that eventually someone would have got around to it. Meanwhile, look at what this article looked like before I eviscerated it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ithaka_%28musician%29&oldid=12...
There's so much crap, though, why force me to work on this particular article, Atkan, just because it's on your agenda? That's what it amount to, imo. Meanwhile, I have an important article I'm writing on a major and current topic in the news that Wikipedia doesn't have even a stub on. I personally think my writing that article is far more important than Aktan's article.
This reminds me, I have a Turkish film director stub that needs some work, namely translating the titles of the Turkish tv shows. Sinan Cetin made one of the funniest movies I've ever seen--I would have rather been working on his stub than Aktan's, also.
KP _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/7/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I sympathize. I want to write some articles on major omitted academic people in fields I know about, but I find myself completely occupied in rushed writing of articles for those that are challenged, even if the existing article is good enough as it is. I've rewritten a few on people whose main work was in languages I did not know, but which had just enough material and reviews and other commentary in English to try to show the notability. I sometimes succeeded, but someone more appropriate could have done a much better job--and there was no real need for the rush except the constraint of the AfD, because the positions asserted made a reasonable prima facie case for notability.
But, as for many other articles, those who first wrote them could have done a better job. I have frequently had the experience of asking an obviously interested editor who was clearly still on WP, & who clearly had access to the necessary material, to improve the article to prevent deletion, and had them ignore it.
Anyone can edit, unfortunately, means that anyone can edit, no matter how irresponsible or incompetent. KP and I & the few dozen similarly inclined can't help them all, but if all of the hundreds whose main interest is in deleting gave a hand at improving, we would get a better WP than if they did deletion only. DGG
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/0 This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to raise this question
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In this particular case ([[Coşkun Can Aktan]]), a discussion on the talk page likely wouldn't have accomplished much. The last human edit before it was sent to AFD was in November 2006, and that edit included adding the {{notability}} concern.
Sending it to AFD, however, established that the person in question was, indeed, notable, and brought attention to the article which has been significantly improved over the course of the deletion discussion.
On the other hand we have Turkish editors you could have asked to look it over, and we have a solid group of economics editors who could have looked it over. That's what I do, ask someone to look over an article. It requires less Wikipedia time from people who don't have it.
I just think the forced working on an article that isn't as bad as a lot of the crap on Wikipedia (look at this before an after, lately I'm doing musicians for some reason) is not in the best interests of all editors concerned. Aktan is well-known enough that eventually someone would have got around to it. Meanwhile, look at what this article looked like before I eviscerated it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ithaka_%28musician%29&oldid=12...
There's so much crap, though, why force me to work on this particular article, Atkan, just because it's on your agenda? That's what it amount to, imo. Meanwhile, I have an important article I'm writing on a major and current topic in the news that Wikipedia doesn't have even a stub on. I personally think my writing that article is far more important than Aktan's article.
This reminds me, I have a Turkish film director stub that needs some work, namely translating the titles of the Turkish tv shows. Sinan Cetin made one of the funniest movies I've ever seen--I would have rather been working on his stub than Aktan's, also.
KP _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
And we would have more good articles and fewer really poor ones. Well, I delve into AfD every 6 weeks or so and always regret it (actually, I multitask when I'm doing it, so I need something on Wikipedia that doesnt require my thinking).
I think that Wikipedia would be better off if every editor who nominated an AfD tried to improve it first. Which is what I do.
KP
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can...
In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to decide.
This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than AFD, for all its faults.
Um, no.