Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight? Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?
On 11/11/05, Jason Y. Lee jylee@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight? Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?
-- Jason Y. Lee AKA AllyUnion
Do you have any evidence that such a philosophy existed in the first place? If it ever did is suspect it died over the notabilty arguments.
-- geni
It is standard to delete recreations which are exact copies or very near copies of previously deleted material. If that's not the case ask for undeletion at WP:DRV and tell it was wrongfully deleted as a recreation, because it is not sufficiently similar.
Mgm
On 11/11/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/11/05, Jason Y. Lee jylee@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight? Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?
-- Jason Y. Lee AKA AllyUnion
Do you have any evidence that such a philosophy existed in the first place? If it ever did is suspect it died over the notabilty arguments.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It is standard to delete recreations which are exact copies or very near copies of previously deleted material. If that's not the case ask for undeletion at WP:DRV and tell it was wrongfully deleted as a recreation, because it is not sufficiently similar.
Oy, another abbreviation to remember. This profusion of WP:TLA redirects may make it easier to link to pages but they certainly don't make it easier to understand what's being talked about.
In the case of [[The Jar]], I just went ahead and undeleted the article and added an external link, as well as mentioning on talk: why I thought the reason given for its deletion was invalid. That seemed to work, but a short while later some editors came along who expanded the article greatly so it may not be the best counterexample since it may have simply gone unnoticed until then.
On 11/11/05, Jason Y. Lee jylee@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight? Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?
That's a poor argument for deletion. If an article is rubbish, you don't have to delete its history to produce a rewrite.
On recreation, I do think there is a tendency to over-zealous use of the recreation CSD. In particular parking protection tags on certain subjects seems to go against the spirit of both the encyclopedia and the wiki.
On Saturday 12 November 2005 08:27 am, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 11/11/05, Jason Y. Lee jylee@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight? Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?
That's a poor argument for deletion. If an article is rubbish, you don't have to delete its history to produce a rewrite.
Unfortunately, too many incorrectly view deletion as a debate over the content of the article rather than the worthiness of the article for inclusion. The deletion policy page explicitly states that "Article needs improvement", "Article needs a *lot* of improvement", etc. are problems that are not valid reasons for deletion, but the deletionists conveniently ignore this book of their Bible.
If an article is completely without a shred of correct information, but the subject itself is worthy of inclusion, then the article can always be blanked to remove the anti-content; but listing something for deletion is a statement that the subject itself is unworthy.
On 11/12/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On recreation, I do think there is a tendency to over-zealous use of the recreation CSD. In particular parking protection tags on certain subjects seems to go against the spirit of both the encyclopedia and the wiki.
So does protection full stop. However you can't always block everybody.
-- geni