We can backport, sure. And they'll be deleted. Really - have a look at the deletion debates Eric is talking about there. They're appalling. In particular, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Able_and_Baker_%282nd_nomination%29 is galling. -Snowspinner On Oct 24, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Han Dao wrote:

On 25 Oct 2005, at 00:36, Snowspinner wrote: I dont know anything at all about webcomics, but I recognise the notability standards problem from elsewhere; people argue that breweries should produce so much beer a year to be notable and other such arbitrary decisions. But I dont see anything in the article that establishes notability (this may be because it has been fighting deletion of course), but something that shows how it forms part of the history or culture or influenced or was influenced by other things would help; lists of characters and so on are just not interesting. Its not linked from any other articles. No notable cultural item stands in isolation; the links from it are just words - potato, vending machine etc. (Actually it should be linked from Dayfree Press - just fixing that). This could all be due to its fought over state, but show me another article that is what it should look like. Justinc

On Oct 24, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote: Well sniped. -Snowspinner

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Han Dao wrote: You talk about notability like it's some objective thing. Where are you getting this standard from? Ryan

Han Dao wrote: Well put! Having determined that most webcomics are non-notable, it is safe to assume that one need not look at the particular contribution to verify that it is non-notable. A rule-abiding decision to delete should be disturbed by the introduction of real facts. Ec

On 25 Oct 2005, at 01:07, Anthony DiPierro wrote: Well explain to me why you think it is notable then. I am open minded, it just isnt clear as an outsider that it is. You have until I rewrite [[Lentil]], which is notable, but you cant really tell that from reading it either (although less likely to be deleted). Justinc

On 25 Oct 2005, at 01:35, Anthony DiPierro wrote: I dont have an opinion either way. All I said was that it wasnt immediately apparent from the article to an outsider. Ok if you cant do that why are all webcomics notable? If you cant convince me (a broadish inclusionist really, and very open minded) then no wonder you cant convince the people on afd. Justinc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Anthony DiPierro wrote: <snip> By your logic: If any people are notable, then all people are notable. Excuse me while I write articles on Anthony DiPierro, Justin Cormack, and the rest. - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

On 25 Oct 2005, at 16:35, Michael Turley wrote: Well I know exactly what third party verifiable information about me is out there (well I hope I do). It would produce an amazingly incoherent article: odd spells alternating long and short in Universities, directorship of a Russian restaurant, couple of rather dull drivers in the Linux kernel, old Usenet postings about food, edits to wikipedia, strangely inconsistent official addresses, detailed positionings in space and time based on my photos in Commons, place and time of birth, fact that closest relative with an article on wikipedia is my uncle, several pictures under free licenses. Actually that list looks alarmingly like some of the articles we do have on wikipedia, random collections of facts without a narrative and organizing thread to make them into really good articles. Justinc

Define the notability standard for every topics that need such a standard like webcomics. So if a webcomic was AfD, one have to check the webcomic notability guideline to see if they meet. On 10/25/05, Snowspinner &lt;Snowspinner(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)ctelco.net&gt; wrote: A few would have a near veto anyway. If a few is 4 then 8 delete votes would be needed to remove it. -- geni

On 10/26/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm &lt;macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Will people be provideing formal signed documents to the fondation showing that they indeed are experts in the fields they claim? Tends not to work because the include everthingists tend not to agree. -- geni

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Anthony DiPierro wrote: Can you find public, verifiable information about these webcomics in respectable secondary sources? - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Justin Cormack wrote: There are established magazines and other media sources which routinely talk about computer games. "Is noted outside of the community it originated" is one of the things I tried to pin to the "notable" tag (foolish me). By that I mean: "has received attention outside of its own fandom". So, a website which sells widgets and is unknown outside of the widget community should not have an article; a website which is reasonably well-known in the widget community should be mentioned in the article on widgets; and a website which sells widgets, well known within the widget community, /which has been Slashdotted/, could have it's own article. - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

"Alphax" &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote in message news:435F6564.4010207@gmail.com... [snip] The problem here is that there are many people/things which are extremely interesting but---until we write about them---all but unknown **outside their particular subject community**. For example, I doubt if I could name half-a-dozen Particle Physicists. I'll bet you there are ten times that many who deserve an article of their own, but you'd be hard put to it to convince some of the hard-core AFD deletionists of it, because they simply vote "nn, never heard of them" without even giving the appearance of reading the article. What I can't understand is that I come to an encyclopaedia wanting to find things I **don't** already know about, not endless regurgitation of stuff I already knew. So rejecting an article on the grounds that I don't already know the subject matter seems nonsensical to me. Am I alone? -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

On 26/10/05, Phil Boswell &lt;phil.boswell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Today's VFD zen: the first twelve of fifteen entries on this days page are nominated simply as "NN, D. ~~~~" (and there's more after that). I swear this becomes self-parody sometimes... I'm half-tempted to nominate a short but reasonably notable bio I wrote this afternoon for deletion, simply to see if anyone would concur with "nn, d" ([[Fleury Mesplet]], eighteenth century French printer with silly name = obscure), but I fear that it might be a little obviously Making A Point. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 10/26/05, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Be careful, you might just get your article deleted. And if it did get deleted, you'd be swarmed with users who don't actually care a whit about content saying "KD, valid AfD" in the undeletion forum. After all, they've voted themselves a consensus that says undeletion is about _process_, not _content_. Then you'd have the "enforcement admins" camping the spawn... er, keeping the article title on their watchlists so they could be the first to speedy delete it as a recreation, and they'll even cite you the Wikipedia Revised Code reference as they do it. And if you're really unlucky, you'll have a wikistalker editor or admin watching your further contributions to make sure you don't try to insert that deleted content in to a related article! Consensus said delete! How dare you consider trying to find a useful place for your work! I simply cannot imagine a plausible end to this nonsense at this time. Knowing that deletion is easy power, and creation is powerful but difficult work, imagine where the teenaged populists tend to congregate. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 10/26/05, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- There was an article about a famous professor that was copied directly from a magazine article in Vanity Fair. It was nominated for deletion and received quite a few "Delete. Vanity" votes (I guess it *was* an article in *Vanity* Fair. It eventually was deleted as a copyvio and several months later recreated as a non-copyvio.

On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: It isn't hard to prove Unlikely. Nomitateing involves: 1)finding the article. This has been made easy for you 2)typeing {{Subst:ADF}} a the top of the page 3a) If you are me looking up the instructions on how to list something 4)typeing in reason 5)listing. So the person at a minium edited 3 pages. How many did you edit? -- geni

On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: No it shoulds be dissregarded because WP:POINT. I take it you conceed that the nominator did in fact take more effort to nominate than you did to vote. Can you prove it is nonsense? Today hasn't been the best day for wikipedia running times. Listing things on AFD under those conditions is a pain. -- geni

On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: No becuase they don't appear to violate WP:POINT. However it would show that you cared rather a lot (unless you had a less complex method of accessing the net in which case it shows you are wierd. Doing anything when Wikipedia is sluggish shows you care. You know if you want to encorage debate on AFD how about debateing. Go through and comment rather than voteing. Decide that for a time peroid (say a month) you are not going to vote only comment. Encourage others to the same. -- geni

On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: However I can't show that they are doing it to make a point I wasn't exactly being serious. While I can come up with some say "interesting" interpritations of the rules I don't I could really get you under the dissruption clause for that. I'd bet tempted to go a stage further and not vote at all. In theory RFC however it would be likely yo become messy. I see no reason to mess with the ritual that is school AFds aparenty most of those takeing part are consenting adults. -- geni

On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: Other than you addmissions on this list (but I'm not sure if we ever decided that stuff from the mailing list could be used as evidence against). You wanted someone else removed from AFD. I can't see any way of doing it without going through arbcom. I have no interest in blocking you. You would hardly be the first to vote mass keep. It doesn't appear to cause to many problems in the long run. It breaks the mold. It gives an example to other people to think about AFD in a different way. -- geni

"The Cunctator" &lt;cunctator(a)kband.com&gt; wrote in message news:BF867DFA.3E8E5%cunctator@kband.com... ObAaron: No. I'd say we have a good case for moving all this kind of crap to the Talk Page. Let me think about it overnight, maybe my head will feel clearer in the morning :-) -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

On 27 Oct 2005, at 05:06, geni wrote: The nominator is just wasting everyones time. In one case the article is a joke (Mattism), but was listed as "NN D". This is not helpful, especially as it means that everyone who wants to vote has to do the research rather than the nominator. One of the articles was part of a series, so nominating it alone was stupid (I think he did it as it had school in the name). The amount of time wasted makes this tantamount to vandalism and I think blocking the user from VfD would be a suitable response. Justinc

See the Arbitration case of Anthony DiPierro. He was a disruptive inclusionist; there is no reason why someone couldn't be banned from AfD for deletionist disruption. Note that the disruption is of /Wikipedia/. It is impossible to disrupt /AfD/ with deletionism, no matter how lunatic -- that entire subsystem is maliciously designed to support and encourage lunatic deletionism. -- Sean Barrett | Inritum est qua legibus sean(a)epoptic.com | prohibitum est.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 geni wrote: <snip> *reads fine print* (c) Microsoft 2003-2005 Well, /there's/ the problem! - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Gallagher stated for the record: When a system is so destructively broken that numerous members of the community realize that it is impossible to repair and begin calling for its complete abolition (and use apt phrases such as "dynamite enema"), it is time for that system's defenders to question their fanaticism. - -- Sean Barrett | George was very curious. sean(a)epoptic.com |

The hyperbole regarding AFD's "brokenness", including terms like "fanaticism" applied to its supporters, is not a strong argument that it is actually broken. Jay.

On 10/31/05, Snowspinner &lt;Snowspinner(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Only if you can show that another system would not have the same effect. -- geni

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 JAY JG stated for the record: Strong arguments proving its brokenness are laid out in detail elsewhere and need not be repeated. Observation of the fanaticism of those denying that plethora of argument, on the other hand, is perennial. - -- Sean Barrett sean(a)epoptic.com

JAY JG wrote: Your ratio of controversial articles seems about right. The problem is in the tenacity with which controversial deletions are protected. No damage would be done by allowing the controversial ones more time, or allowing them to be easily undeleted for further discussion for as long as it takes. Ec

geni wrote: It would depend on the circumstances of the conflict, wouldn't it? In cases where there's genuine debate going on, it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily cut it off at some deadline rather than letting it continue until a clear decision is reached. If it stalemates then perhaps a deadline can come into play but it shouldn't be required as a universal solution. "Conflict" is not inherently bad, it's part of how disagreements can be resolved.

geni wrote: So? Subjectivity is going to come into play _somewhere_ in the midst of all this, even if it's in the process of setting up objective standards in the first place. There's already a very well-established policy against personal attacks, so I don't see how this is relevant. Not all conflict is heated.

Bryan Derksen wrote: Conflict becomes bad when the conflict itself becomes more important than the subject of the conflict. Some domestic arguments manage to carry on even after the spouses have forgotten what the argument was about. Ec

JAY JG wrote: More or less. But it's not even a percentage issue. Many of the deleted articles may have 5 votes to delete and no comments to keep. The original contributor may not even know that the process has been applied until long after the article has been deleted. Measuring the discussion period in days alone doesn't help in obscure subjects that get very little traffic. At the same time it's easy to get five people together with a common agenda of cleaning out what they see as non-notable articles. The average contributor cannot undelete anything. He still needs the agreement of one sysop to revive the article. It is still conceivable that a sysop who wants an article undeleted could act alone. Even the disgruntled author whom you describe needs one kick at the cat. He will still need the assistance of a sysop. To delete the article again would require some adequate number of NEW voices to want it deleted. The process could be repeated indefinitely with the key requirement being that each such action requires new participants, whether as ordinary users or sysops. This all assumes that in course of this cycle of deletions and undeletions there have been no major improvements to the article, or there have been no acceptable alternative solutions. There will always be articles that need deletion. Scrapping the process entirely will mean that another one will have to be found. I view the change from VfD to AfD as something of the sort. I would scrap VfU as a redundant process. If someone wants an article undeleted it should be enough to let those views be known by adding comments to the existing AfD page, which would never be closed. Starting a separate VfU discussion just means that we end up with a fragmented discussion with the same arguments in two different places. The biggest flaw in the existing process is perhaps the tone of finality that accompanies these deletions. It is understandable that when you sweep the dirt ou the door you want it to stay out. On the other hand, stories abound of old comic books or baseball cards that were thrown out in one of mom's clean ups but which were retrospectively determined to have great value. I think that we can still have any article that goes through AfD could easily be undeleted, but I suspect that 95% of these will in fact stay deleted without any fuss at all. Ec

G'day Jayjg, Hey, now. I never said I was a supporter! Which just makes it worse, really, doesn't it? The mailing list and AfD seem to mirror each other in many ways. On the one hand, AfDers don't pat each other on the back and talk about how they're the only ones who realise the truth about those nasty inclusionists. On the other, bile-spewing inclusionists on this list aren't deleting others' hard work. Who deserves to be hated more? Well, if any of y'all reading this are wondering if that's what I'm getting at, it's time to step back a little and have a cup of tea or something. Cheers, -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Bryan Derksen wrote: I'm sure that some nice person has written a script by which all they have to do is click a link/press a button and it will automatically votet "keep/delete" for them... (I hereby claim copyright/patent/whatever on this idea and am willing to write such a function in exchange for a position on Arbcom.) - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

As long as everyone is allowed to share their views or just blatantly vote without properly explaining their vote. We're going to make mistakes. We can't fix that without doing something very unwiki. We should ignore votes that don't make a case on why a comic of a professional author shouldn't be included or make a wrong one based on the policy we've got. --Mgm On 10/25/05, Alphax &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Snowspinner wrote: Just knowing about the nomination is a problem for an editor with once-a-week computer access. With a five day cycle an article can be nominated and deleted befor he comes back the following week. Ec