--- "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)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