Subject: [WikiEN-l] Crap vfd nominations
I have speedy kept the following vfd nominations, and been threatened with a block: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Freehold_Circle "Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft. Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Laurelton_Circle "I don't normally get into the road wars on AfD, but this is a former traffic circle, now converted to a traffic light. Its notability derives from the notability of the history of the traffic light. Delete. Chick Bowen 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Flemington_Circle "This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ White_Horse_Circle "Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete --Aranda56 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"
What the fuck is with people?
If a nomination is crap, explain why in the AfD. If your explanations are convincing, people will vote to keep. If nominators notice that their nomination has been buried by a near-unanimous string of keeps, they'll be embarrassed and stop making problematical nominations. This procedure has the great advantage in that it works and that it does not making people angry thereby provoking counter-responses directed at your manner rather than at the merit of the topic.
In _any_ AfD discussion, it is much more helpful to address the _particular_ article under discussion than to pass blanket judgments on an entire class of articles. Nominations that say "oh cmon its a traffic circle" and "roadcruft" are not helpful. Neither are responses that say "all traffic circles are notable." Even if you believe that all traffic circles should be deleted or that all traffic circles should be kept, neither of these extremes is a widely held opinion and repetitive, strident assertions of these general principles are not going to create a consensus. (Neither do repetitive, strident assertions that there _is_ consensus in areas where there actually is not).
When nominating a traffic circle, give reasons why _this particular_ traffic circle shouldn't be kept. Two of the nominations mentioned above do this, although not in a very coherent way. When arguing that an article on a traffic circle should be kept, say why _this particular_ traffic circle is worth keeping. Is the article particularly good? Do traffic reports in the city reference it?
The reason for doing this has nothing to do with The Principle Of The Thing. The reason for doing it is that these techniques _work_.
(Another technique that works for keeping articles is to improve them a bit _before_ entering the nomination discussion).
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
On 9/30/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
If a nomination is crap, explain why in the AfD. If your explanations are convincing, people will vote to keep. If nominators notice that their nomination has been buried by a near-unanimous string of keeps, they'll be embarrassed and stop making problematical nominations.
Well, kinda works. After only about five months of high school articles being almost invariably kept, looks like we've moved on to elementary schools. :/
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
If a nomination is crap, explain why in the AfD. If your explanations are convincing, people will vote to keep. If nominators notice that their nomination has been buried by a near-unanimous string of keeps, they'll be embarrassed and stop making problematical nominations. This procedure has the great advantage in that it works and that it does not making people angry thereby provoking counter-responses directed at your manner rather than at the merit of the topic.
It also has great disadvantage - it doesn't work! People continue to vote "OMG TRAFFIC CIRCLE DELETE".
In _any_ AfD discussion, it is much more helpful to address the _particular_ article under discussion than to pass blanket judgments on an entire class of articles. Nominations that say "oh cmon its a traffic circle" and "roadcruft" are not helpful. Neither are responses that say "all traffic circles are notable." Even if you believe that all traffic circles should be deleted or that all traffic circles should be kept, neither of these extremes is a widely held opinion and repetitive, strident assertions of these general principles are not going to create a consensus. (Neither do repetitive, strident assertions that there _is_ consensus in areas where there actually is not).
How else would one argue from the basis that yes, all named traffic circles are local landmarks and thus "notable"? The whole "notability" thing just doesn't work, because there's no way to counter "nn roadcruft".
I wonder how people would argue their keep vote if I were to nominate a small town of population 40-50 with the only edits by Rambot. What other argument would apply to a generic small town than "all towns deserve articles"?
When nominating a traffic circle, give reasons why _this particular_ traffic circle shouldn't be kept. Two of the nominations mentioned above do this, although not in a very coherent way. When arguing that an article on a traffic circle should be kept, say why _this particular_ traffic circle is worth keeping. Is the article particularly good? Do traffic reports in the city reference it?
Playing devil's advocate, traffic reports mention minor streets. Doesn't mean they should be kept.
The reason for doing this has nothing to do with The Principle Of The Thing. The reason for doing it is that these techniques _work_.
Unless it's "nn cruft". They they fall flat against an unstoppable stream of assholes.
(Another technique that works for keeping articles is to improve them a bit _before_ entering the nomination discussion).
Someone did that for White Horse Circle. It didn't help:
# 00:21, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (tweak) # 00:18, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (added enough to prevent this article from getting deleted ;-)) # 01:25, 22 September 2005 . . Aranda56 (Placed VFD)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Horse_Cir...
The only argument that makes sense against "Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete" is "fuck you, asshole".
And I see that Calton continues to be an asshole:
I'll note that SPUI deleted the AfD tag in the article. He's getting passionate and breaking rules over a traffic circle? --Calton | Talk 02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone did that for White Horse Circle. It didn't help:
# 00:21, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (tweak) # 00:18, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (added enough to prevent this article from getting deleted ;-)) # 01:25, 22 September 2005 . . Aranda56 (Placed VFD)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Horse_Cir...
The only argument that makes sense against "Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete" is "fuck you, asshole".
OK, now I'm interested. What was the article like when it was deleted? Can't we copy these things somewhere before deleting them? I'd like to include the article in Jnanabase.
Anthony
I looked, and it says "nn cruft". wtf?
On 10/1/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Someone did that for White Horse Circle. It didn't help:
# 00:21, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (tweak) # 00:18, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (added enough to prevent this article from getting deleted ;-)) # 01:25, 22 September 2005 . . Aranda56 (Placed VFD)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Horse_Cir...
The only argument that makes sense against "Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete" is "fuck you, asshole".
OK, now I'm interested. What was the article like when it was deleted? Can't we copy these things somewhere before deleting them? I'd like to include the article in Jnanabase.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ok, I dug farther and that happened when someone put it up for deletion. *SHRUG*. (For admins: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=White_...)
White Horse Circle is a traffic circle in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. It is no longer a true traffic circle, but is bisected by U.S. Highway 206 (commonly called Route 206). It is named after the nearby neighborhood of White Horse. This intersection connects South Broad Street, White Horse-Mercerville Road, and Bordentown Road. Bordentown Road and the western side of South Broad St. make up sections of Route 206.
Due to its bisection by a major highway and cut-up appearance, it has a highly complex traffic pattern. Only White Horse-Mercerville Road has a stop sign at the circle, while the eastern part of South Broad St. and the southern part of Route 206 have traffic signals some distance from the circle. To allow cars to move in a safe fashion, there are six yield-signed road segments allowing cars to get to Route 206 and from the highway to White Horse-Mercerville Road. Route 206, when the light allows, has no yield sign restrictions.
Since the completion of Interstate 195 which runs near the circle, much of the traffic that would have gone through the circle would now take the wider, faster interstate. Circle traffic bound for the interstate would either take the exit on U.S. 206 south for westbound traffic and the intersection at South Broad Street and Arena Drive for eastbound traffic.
History and Trivia
At one point, the White Horse Circle was the northern end of U.S. Highway 130 before the freeway through Hamilton was built. In the 1920s, it was also the northern end of N.J. 2. Some highway bridges from the period along U.S. 206 have "New Jersey Highway 2" carved into the concrete barriers.
The western end of New Jersey State Highway 37 was going to be at the White Horse Circle at one time. That highway was going to run down South Broad Street towards Yardville along what is now CR 524. At one time, the bridge in Yardville on South Broad Street over Groff Lake had "New Jersey State Highway 37" carved into the concrete barriers. Now, the traffic that would have taken NJ 37 takes I-195.
See Also
* Traffic circle * List of traffic circles in New Jersey * Hamilton Township, New Jersey * White Horse, New Jersey
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete"
Categories: Pages for deletion | Traffic circles in New Jersey
On 10/1/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
I looked, and it says "nn cruft". wtf?
OK, now I'm interested. What was the article like when it was deleted? Can't we copy these things somewhere before deleting them? I'd like to include the article in Jnanabase.
Phroziac wrote:
Ok, I dug farther and that happened when someone put it up for deletion. *SHRUG*.
Whatever went before, we've now got a revert war going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jerse... with a bunch of people who are deleting content about the traffic circle from the article solely because of the result of the VfD on the traffic circle's own article.
This is _dumb._ If I were to split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton%2C_Alberta#Sister_cities off into its own article, which was then VfDed because it's silly to have that as a stand-alone article, would it thenceforth and forevermore be not allowed to put the information back into the main article on Edmonton? This is a clear example of process being held up as more important than content. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, the only issue should be whether the article on Hamilton Township is improved by including this material. Without it the article's just another bland Rambot extrusion. How else is it ever going to grow beyond that except by having material added?
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Whatever went before, we've now got a revert war going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jerse... with a bunch of people who are deleting content about the traffic circle from the article solely because of the result of the VfD on the traffic circle's own article.
The revert war now seems to have moved over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse%2C_New_Jersey, for those following this little drama. A town of less than 10,000 people, and previously just another Rambot article.
On 10/2/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The revert war now seems to have moved over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse%2C_New_Jersey, for those following this little drama. A town of less than 10,000 people, and previously just another Rambot article.
Or to put it another way somewhere out of the way where people are not going to notice and it is unlikely to have any effect on the running of wikipedia. I'm failing to see a downside.
-- geni
On 10/2/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Excellent. Now a rambot article which has existed for nearly three years, and has had a link to the now deleted article about the White Horse Circle since January, has been updated to include useful information about that local landmark.