--- "Chris Wood" standsongrace@hotmail.com wrote:

Just because an article is not up to standard does not mean it should be deleted, rather, it should be improved.

Chris, I think we are using the word "standard" in two different interpretations. I concur one hundred percent that a poorly-written article should not be deleted for that reason, but improved. You're absolutely right on that. However, the way I used the word "standard" was as a "minimum requirement." Our minimum requirements are a set of hurdles an article must sail over -- or barely clamber over, just so long as it goes over the bar and not under it. Those hurdles are found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and similar policy pages. In that meaning of the word, an article absolutely *must* be up to standard or it goes. If it fails the "What Wikipedia is not" test, it doesn't meet our minimum standards for inclusion and should be deleted.

Also, I think you might be operating under a misperception of normal VfD operations. Sometimes well-meaning newcomers do bring articles to VfD not because it is an invalid type of article, but simply because they think the article stinks. When that happens you can be sure a regular will quickly (and often, politely) inform them that VfD is not for differences of opinion on article content. The article is kept and sent to cleanup. Exactly what should happen. Many articles also get an accelerated version of Cleanup because they were listed on VfD, resulting in the Wikipedia keeping a drastically improved article.

Trust me, VfD is *not* populated by slummy, scummy vultures waiting to tear an article apart. You'll find much improving of articles taking place there, along with a lot of honest evaluations of whether or not articles meet the standards we have set.

In my earlier e-mail, I wrote:

What types of articles get deleted on VfD? Vanity pages, advertisements, original research, source material, medical advice, memorials to deceased friends, stories that received a small article on page 16 of their local newspaper years ago, political rants, game guides, neologisms, hoaxes, etc. Anything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Standards. It's all about standards.

Chris Wood responded:

What are these "standards" you mention? They aren't Wikipedia policy.

I believe we do have policies that cover everything in that list and more. Over half of that list is covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not The others are covered in related policies. It is indeed Wikipedia policy that I was referring to when I mentioned standards.

I think the way we each intended the word "standard" caused us to be using the same word but talking about different things. You're right in that we don't have policies requiring a certain word count, or reading level, or anything of that nature. That's not what I meant by "standard." What I meant was what I described above.

In that sense, we certainly do have standards for articles to even qualify for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Granted, most of them are in the form of a negative (must not be a Candidate for Speedy Deletion, see list for details; must not be What Wikipedia is not, see list for details; etc.). In many instances it wouldn't matter if the information is factual or not -- the mere type of "article" it is automatically qualifies it for deletion. An advertisement may contain all factual information, but it does not meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia because it is an ad. A FAQ may contain all factual information, but it does not meet the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia because it is a FAQ.

It is the cases where an article doesn't qualify for Speedy Deletion, but doesn't belong in the Wikipedia that VfD is supposed to handle. I think it handles these quite well, and appropriately. Oh, and yes, I did read the parent post and I (obviously) disagree with it.

Stephen W. Adair SWAdair