Jake Nelson wrote:
Note: Copyright violations and other "urgent deletions" (for example, as in a past case, the revelation of the real name, city of residence, college currently attended, and exact place of work of a certain young woman depicted in certain pictures on the Internet under a stage name) should be dealt with outside of the system used for normal articles. Listing something that is not an "urgent" deletion on the page for those should be recognized as a violation of policy.
The reason many people treat the current deletion process as having urgency is the same reason we get flak for stuff like the Seigenthaler article. Since we give readers little help in figuring out which of our articles are decent and which are junk, it shouldn't be surprising that some people have a strong urge to trash the junk when they see it.
Stable versions, please, any day now...
--Michael Snow
On 1/21/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
The reason many people treat the current deletion process as having urgency is the same reason we get flak for stuff like the Seigenthaler article.
I don't think that is true, really I don't. Look at AfD for 20 Jan.
I notice, by the way, that we got 208 listings today, up from a measured average of 112 in the period July-to-September. I thought AfD would throttle back before it reached the 200-listings barrier, but I was wrong.
So what do we have?
A guy who thinks that an article about an atoll should be merged with another. Why is this on Afd?
An alleged copyright infringement in English where the alleged source contains only Chinese as far as I can tell. I'm closing this AfD and querying the decision to mark as a copyright infringement
This isn't a promising start. No, AfD is filling up with stuff that would be better dealt with by thought and discussion. Not shouty "delete this please because I can't make head or tail of it!" notices.