I want to raise one specific and one general issue for discussion:
1) A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for speedy deletion. The nomination was subsequently defended on the basis that our standards for notability don't say anything about Norwegian bishops. Indeed, the standards don't say anything about religious leaders at all, but I have to imagine that common sense would lead a reasonable person to appreciate that one of the 11 top clergy of the official state church of Norway is notable. Should we either update the guidelines for biographical notability or impose some standard of common sense, to preempt this kind of zealotry?
2) I am known to take a broad definition of vandalism. I think it's any act that disrupts Wikipedia, perpetrated by someone who knows better. So when a seasoned editor creates a lot of work for a lot of other people on an issue that will surely go one way or another; or plays games with rules; or hides behind AGF, then we should be allowed to assume they're up to no good. Perhaps we should define bad behavior that falls short of vandalism but is still unacceptable. I nominate KNAVERY as the right term, as it goes to the saying "he's either a fool or a knave."
And happy holidays and a great, productive Gregorian new year to everyone!
Leif
On 12/25/06, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I want to raise one specific and one general issue for discussion:
- A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church
of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for speedy deletion. The nomination was subsequently defended on the basis that our standards for notability don't say anything about Norwegian bishops. Indeed, the standards don't say anything about religious leaders at all, but I have to imagine that common sense would lead a reasonable person to appreciate that one of the 11 top clergy of the official state church of Norway is notable. Should we either update the guidelines for biographical notability or impose some standard of common sense, to preempt this kind of zealotry?
- I am known to take a broad definition of vandalism. I think it's any act
that disrupts Wikipedia, perpetrated by someone who knows better. So when a seasoned editor creates a lot of work for a lot of other people on an issue that will surely go one way or another; or plays games with rules; or hides behind AGF, then we should be allowed to assume they're up to no good. Perhaps we should define bad behavior that falls short of vandalism but is still unacceptable. I nominate KNAVERY as the right term, as it goes to the saying "he's either a fool or a knave."
And happy holidays and a great, productive Gregorian new year to everyone!
Leif
Has the editor been informed of this person's standing in the Church? Did the AFD page has this mentioned as a reason to keep? Was the article improved to include the importance? *And was the article still deleted?* Passive-aggressive conflict resolution solves nothing.
-david
- A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church
of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for speedy deletion.
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. Assuming the article said he was a bishop, I think that is an assertion of notability. Deciding whether or not it's a good enough assertion is a job for AfD.
On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church
of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for speedy deletion.
Non-notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, only non-assertion of notability. Assuming the article said he was a bishop, I think that is an assertion of notability. Deciding whether or not it's a good enough assertion is a job for AfD.
Unfortunately, there's no rule that will prevent really stupid deletion nominations. And speedy is for obvious rubbish.
AFDs are at least slower than speedy. I have *occasionally* speedy-kept an AFDed article when it's obvious to the knowledgeable on the subject that the nomination was ignorant at best, though even then I'll typically say "unless anyone substantially objects by tomorrow I'll speedy-keep this" just to be sure (since the article certainly wouldn't be deleted by the next day otherwise). A sort of "bend all rules within reason to check they're still flexible enough to be sensible" approach. No-one's gotten drastically upset with it yet.
- d.
On 12/25/06, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I want to raise one specific and one general issue for discussion:
- A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church
of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for speedy deletion. The nomination was subsequently defended on the basis that our standards for notability don't say anything about Norwegian bishops.
This is where you quote [[WP:IAR]] at them -- the guy's a damned bishop, he's certainly at least notable enough for AfD. At the very least, the fact that another experienced editor is disagreeing about the speedy nom should give this person pause, I think.
In this case, a speedy seems blatantly inappropriate. I'd personally just remove the tag and ask that they go for AfD or nothing.
Just my thoughts, -Luna