Since it isn't, it gets put through AfD to force someone to put up a real reason. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, other than people write this kind of article in the first place instead of providing the notability themselves.

standards for minimum article quality but made efforts to help articles pass them, rather than trying to fail them.

Interesting thought there; perhaps it would be much better if we had standards for minimum article quality but made efforts to help articles pass them, rather than trying to fail them.

On 6/15/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: > At any rate, there are > some 1400 tenure and tenure-track faculty at UMD. Harvard has more. > That makes hundreds of thousands "notable", just counting present > faculty; the dead of course hugely outnumber them. The survival of the > project relies upon the lack of interest most people have in entering > these directories (for that is what they will largely be). > > Are you suggesting that the project won't survive with 1400 additional entries? If so, I have to disagree.

Anthony wrote: > On 6/16/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: > >> On 6/15/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> At any rate, there are >>> some 1400 tenure and tenure-track faculty at UMD. Harvard has more. >>> That makes hundreds of thousands "notable", just counting present >>> faculty; the dead of course hugely outnumber them. The survival of

>>> project relies upon the lack of interest most people have in entering >>> these directories (for that is what they will largely be). >>> >>> >> Are you suggesting that the project won't survive with 1400 additional >> entries? If so, I have to disagree. >> >> > Sorry, misread. Are you suggesting that the project won't survive > with hundreds of thousands of additional entries? I still disagree. > > > I wouldn't go so far as to say it would kill off the project, but I believe it would be bad for it. We're not attempting to create "Who's Who in Academia", we're attempting to create an encyclopedia. By covering subjects which are barely of note, very little information exists for, and will be forgotten completely ten years from now, we are giving them undue weight simply by inclusion. That violates NPOV, which -is- a core principle.

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Wikipedia.

On 6/18/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/06/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sadly adding new topics becomes not a drive to add them, but more

> > spent trying to keep them, then it takes to actually enter and write > > them. (...) Inappropriate deletion creates time, it diverts

> > energies from what interests them, what brought them to Wikipedia in > > the first place, and forces them to "save" articles that should be

> > Wikipedia. > > I know I only ever seem to reply to you when you talk about > deletionism, but it occurs to me I've never brought up my experience. > > I spent a lot of my on-wiki time of the first half of the year > churning out a large set of stubby "framework articles" on various > topics; nothing remarkable, a couple of sentences each and a reference > and some categories. I was, at times, turning out ten an hour. A lot > of them even *I* consider borderline significant - we're talking > "obscure Victorian statutes" here. > > I got one nomination for deletion - a mistaken speedy from someone who > was confused about a disambiguation page (well, duh, of *course* it > had no content). Looking through the list I keep in userspace, maybe > three have been nominated for deletion, and two were kept - the third > was a decision I don't agree with, but it fit with an existing line of > consensus dating back quite a while. One got politely queried - so I > explained thier significance better - and one got merged into a larger > page, where it was arguably more useful anyway. > > So, you know, there's my anecdote, just to balance all these tales of > woe. I'm running at maybe 1% of articles challenged for inclusion, and > only a fraction of those removed. Maybe I get deference (but I doubt > it); maybe I just have the knack of making things look "right" in > their first draft; maybe my working hours are less 'dangerous' than > yours. But I don't meet a piranha tank of deletion; I create and > watchlist and forget, and they sit there for months. > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk > I haven't started a lot of articles, maybe 30-50. But many are single line stubs. I haven't had any of them put up for deletion, even the single liners that no one else has ever edited (after one of my stalkers copyedited, of course). The pictures always get edited (although my image editor is currently on vacation), and they often get categorized, and they get linked to, because they're organisms that get linked to their family or families to their orders or to their phyla or divisions, but they don't get prodded or AfDed. I did start some as an anon IP also, and none of those were deleted. KP _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l