Tony Sidaway wrote:
I've decided to act on this, and have placed the following notice on the page:
I should note that I've had a notice on my user page that I'll make the text of a deleted article available for a while now, and I've had zero requests.
- d.
On 1/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I've decided to act on this, and have placed the following notice on the page:
I should note that I've had a notice on my user page that I'll make the text of a deleted article available for a while now, and I've had zero requests.
Alas, many people still go to deletion review, where they are usually subject to all kinds of accusations of bad faith and procedural quibbles. I've seen several cases in which I've told the person frankly that it would have been better to bring a contested speedy to me, and I'd just undelete and list on AfD where at least there would be less procedural nonsense.
I've also relisted an article on Gazeebow Unit, a Newfoundland rap group. The article was deleted in a previous nomination on a very low vote, despite the fact that the sole delete voter gave ample evidence of national notability.
Alas, I fully expect that someone will try to pull this renomination on grounds of bad faith. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I've also relisted an article on Gazeebow Unit, a Newfoundland rap group. The article was deleted in a previous nomination on a very low vote, despite the fact that the sole delete voter gave ample evidence of national notability.
I meant, of course, the sole "keep" voter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gazeebow_Unit_%...
Does bad faith matter for deleting or keeping an article? I mean, regardless of what awful motives someone has, at the end of the day we should just delete articles we don't want, and keep articles we do, right?
This is my naive, un-AfD-contaminated optimism here :)
Steve
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I've also relisted an article on Gazeebow Unit, a Newfoundland rap group. The article was deleted in a previous nomination on a very low vote, despite the fact that the sole delete voter gave ample evidence of national notability.
I meant, of course, the sole "keep" voter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gazeebow_Unit_%... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0601310404pb3284e7o1c0b02a2a172008f@mail.gmail.com...
Does bad faith matter for deleting or keeping an article? I mean, regardless of what awful motives someone has, at the end of the day we should just delete articles we don't want, and keep articles we do, right? This is my naive, un-AfD-contaminated optimism here :)
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Process_is_Important
HTH HAND
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0601310404pb3284e7o1c0b02a2a172008f@mail.gmail.com...
Does bad faith matter for deleting or keeping an article? I mean, regardless of what awful motives someone has, at the end of the day we should just delete articles we don't want, and keep articles we do, right? This is my naive, un-AfD-contaminated optimism here :)
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Process_is_Important
Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts. "When the best sort of sysop has to break the law to do what everyone knows is right, there's something wrong with the law. --JimboWales" (from Elian's userpage again...)
On 1/31/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts. "When the best sort of sysop has to break the law to do what everyone knows is right, there's something wrong with the law. --JimboWales" (from Elian's userpage again...)
Of course the problem kicks in when people start to confuse "wants to" with "Has to".
-- geni
On 1/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Of course the problem kicks in when people start to confuse "wants to" with "Has to".
And the next problem arrives when people want a fifteen-archive, five megabyte discussion on whether "has to" is correct.
-- Sam
On 1/31/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Of course the problem kicks in when people start to confuse "wants to" with "Has to".
And the next problem arrives when people want a fifteen-archive, five megabyte discussion on whether "has to" is correct.
-- Sam
That one can be short circeted. If the admin isn't sure they "have to" then the don't makes life a lot less complex.
-- geni
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I've also relisted an article on Gazeebow Unit, a Newfoundland rap group. The article was deleted in a previous nomination on a very low vote, despite the fact that the sole delete voter gave ample evidence of national notability.
I meant, of course, the sole "keep" voter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gazeebow_Unit_%...
As I expected, despite there being no consensus to delete in the second AfD, that AfD was prematurely deleted and the AfD was closed prematurely.
DRV is out of control. They're now interfering with open deletion discussions on AfD.
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I've also relisted an article on Gazeebow Unit, a Newfoundland rap group. The article was deleted in a previous nomination on a very low vote, despite the fact that the sole delete voter gave ample evidence of national notability.
I meant, of course, the sole "keep" voter.
As I expected, despite there being no consensus to delete in the second AfD, that AfD was prematurely deleted and the AfD was closed prematurely.
The AfD was prematurely *closed*, I meant to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gazeebow_Unit_%...
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The AfD was prematurely *closed*, I meant to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gazeebow_Unit_%...
And the entry on it at DRV is loaded up with dozens of "Keep deleted, AfD valid" votes. If the first AfD with its grand total of three deletes (two with explanations simply "per nom") and one keep is valid, what about the second AfD with two keeps and two deletes (one of which argues to delete solely on the basis that its undeletion was out of process)? Why isn't _that_ AfD valid? This sort of rules-lawyering is getting insane.
Is this "Gazeebow Unit" thing a good article to have on Wikipedia or not? That's ultimately the only important question here. All this digging in of heels over pointless protocol and procedure is getting in the way of trying to discuss that.
On 1/31/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Is this "Gazeebow Unit" thing a good article to have on Wikipedia or not?
Historically only AfD has ever shown willingness to consider that question. DRV tends to avoid discussing content. Hence my decision to take the question to AfD.
On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Historically only AfD has ever shown willingness to consider that question. DRV tends to avoid discussing content. Hence my decision to take the question to AfD.
DRV can and has discused content. Listing a deleted article on AFD is a mildly amuseing form of rule lawering but not really very helpful.
-- geni