Eric B. and Rakim wrote:
1. There is no reason to delete any of the pages there
at all.
Copyvios already has a special page. And there is also already
candidates for speedy deletion and simple vandalism that is deleted on
sight.
Please provide examples. Speedy deletions are for contributions that
don't make sense. VfD is for those that do but aren't encyclopedic.
2. Everyone using that page to delete articles is
sabotaging Wikipedia
and should be blocked.
I will not argue with trolls, I will not argue with trolls, I will not
argue with trolls...
3. The page itself should be deleted since it just
can't be fixed.
See above.
4. Articles about "non-notable" stuff does
not hurt Wikipedia. Since
noone cares about the stuff, noone will link to it and noone will
search for it and NOONE will ever see it!
A keyword search can easily bring up non-notable articles. When somebody
sees an entry resembling a blog posting, what will they think of Wikipedia?
5. Except for people that actually GO AND LOOK for
useless articles.
But if you do, it's your own fault that you find them. Casual surfers
and non-wikipedians wont find them.
See above.
6. And cause those articles are never read by anyone
it doesn't hurt
to remove them from Wikipedia. But that's not why vfd is sabotaging
Wikipedia. It is because 50-80% of the articles listed there should
not and will not be deleted. The authors of those articles are forced
to defend their work to people that just haven't got a clue and never
will. Then they have to engage in more pointless arguing with the
deletionists just to prevent them from destroying Wikipedia!
Please provide examples. A good deal of the time, the authors don't
defend their works. Contrary to common belief, very few people who visit
VfD are rabid deletionists who will vote delete for an arbitrary reason.
Most of us actually take the time to Google the article's subject, etc.
The author doesn't have to do much. I've VfDed a lot of articles in my
time, and a lot of them were kept, not thanks to the author's
intervention, but the research of other kind-hearted Wikipedians.
7. The Wikipedia concept is that anyone can edit a
page and that only
those who edits a page gets to determine what information goes into a
page. Its like "do it yourself cause you can't tell anyone else what
to do cause there is no way to force them to do it." Now that concept
doesn't work with vfd cause someone can say "uuuh.. delete unless it
is improved in a week.". That person basically forces those who care
about the article to write what they know about it or it will be
killed. It is not fair at all.
Well, honestly, tell me, what is there to write about someone's smelly
socks? If it's a notable article, it will be improved anyway. Are you
suggesting we tolerate garbage just because the garbage's topic is
something notable? Honestly, if I had to pick between deleting a
(hypothetical) article on Ronald Reagan which is full of unrelated
nonsense about doing drugs or keeping it in the hopes somebody would
improve it, I'd do the former without skipping a beat. Having an article
only gives the impression to readers that we tolerate junk. I'd rather
receive complaints from readers that we don't have an article on Ronald
Reagan than complaints that our article of Ronald Reagan is useless,
which in turn will lead to questioning the credibility of other innocent
articles.
8. As an example:
NASA Project Gemini Familiarization Manual -- Add to this discussion
The flight manual for the Gemini spacecraft - excellent Wikisource
material. Transwiki and delete --Rlandmann 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* Transwiki and delete. Geogre 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* Transwiki and delete. GeneralPatton 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* Have moved article to Wikisource. Please Delete DarylC 2 Sep 2004
Which of these comments is a total waste of everyones time?
Rlandmann's is because despite the fact that he had an excellent idea
he was to damn lazy to carry it out himself as he easily could. Geogre
and GeneralPatton just seem to show off their excellent talents in
agreeing. Finally, DarylC, the primary author of the page actually
does some work and moves the article. Very good DarylC.
The problem with this is that atleast thousand people have been forced
to read this meaningless junk because Rlandmann didn't place the
suggestion to transwiki on the article's talk page which would have
been the right thing to do.
You are missing the whole point of VfD. The point is to ask a wide
audience - that "thousand people" - "Is this article worth keeping, or
do we move it elsewhere/delete it?". The point of VfD is consensus.
Placing the request on the Talk leads to a very very limited audience -
how many Wikipedians read Talk pages on a regular basis? And unitarily
moving it is even worse.
9. Example2: SimonP decided to list Puchland. Puchland
seem to be a
minor webforum that nobody cares about. Because of point 4 above, this
listing too, is completele useless. And as in point 8 the proper way
would have been to propose deletion on that articles talk page. Noone
but those concerned should be the ones taking the decision.
See above.
10. The only way to fix vfd would be to allow people
to cast the
identical vote on range of articles listed there. Then you would be
able to vote "keep doesn't hurt wikipedia" (or whatever) on each and
every article. However, the deletionists would never allow such an
option because it only takes a handful of people to vote in that way
for the whole system to break down.
As an unabashed "deletionist", I'd oppose that because that doesn't make
sense.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])