Matt R wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's a PR problem to have deleted a vanity page from some podcaster whose best claim for notability appears to be he "has listeners, so is doing better for notability than a lot of podcasters".
No, it's an example of larger broadcasters. They do get their stuff deleted too. This is a taster of the sort of relations it creates.
How about we talk about something that vaguely matters? I think it's a much more serious PR problem for the English Wikipedia that the German Wikipedia is lightyears ahead of us in distributing CDs/DVDs/print editions.
Yeah, it's not like we'll have to work with anyone else or have any sort of good image in the world to get that accomplished.
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Matt R wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's a PR problem to have deleted a vanity page from some podcaster whose best claim for notability appears to be he "has listeners, so is doing better for notability than a lot of podcasters".
No, it's an example of larger broadcasters. They do get their stuff deleted too. This is a taster of the sort of relations it creates.
Do you mean this debate?
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Fonseca Rendeiro]]
Doesn't seem overly "spikey" to me, unless I've missed further debate elsewhere. Why exactly do these Wikipedians need to "cool it"? As AfD goes, it seems pretty harmless. I'm sorry, but I don't really think it's constructive to shout and swear at Wikipedians based on what appears to be an unconvincing example of us treating outsiders badly.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Fonseca Rendeiro]]
A model AfD, except for the word "vanity" which was unnecessary and irrelevant (though, as it turned out, true).
If you are unhappy with the way this article was deleted, David, maybe you could tell us how you would have preferred it to be deleted? I'm asking in good faith. How would you have expressed a delete opinion on that page if you had done so? And, if AfD were replaced with some other system of your choosing, how would you have handled this article in that system? Or do you think that deleting this article under any system does more harm than good?
Anyone who's been on this mailing list for 15 seconds knows you don't like AFD but I'm still not quite sure what you want to replace it with. You've suggested disbanding it altogether with the argument that it only deletes some 200 articles a day anyway. But disbanding it and replacing it with nothing would greatly increase the influx of new marginal articles. People who've previously been turned off by having their stuff deleted would be "back in business". The place would start filling up with articles on non-notable people, dolls, webcomics etc. ;)
But I know you're not actually a super-inclusionist. Just a couple of days ago you said on [[WT:AFD]]:
"Note: my personal opinion is that almost everything nominated on AFD does in fact deserve as quick, messy and painful a death as can be managed."
I'm not sure what to make of that. What system do you envision to achieve the following two aims?
a) Solve the PR problems currently generated by AFD.
b) Deal a quick, messy and painful death to almost everything currently handled by AFD.
But I'm probably misinterpreting, considering the opinions you've expressed elsewhere - like cautioning against haste in deletion - you were probably being ironic. Presumably what you want to do is:
b) Deal a slow, clean and painless death to almost everything currently handled by AFD.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Fonseca Rendeiro]]
A model AfD, except for the word "vanity" which was unnecessary and irrelevant (though, as it turned out, true).
If you are unhappy with the way this article was deleted, David, maybe you could tell us how you would have preferred it to be deleted? I'm asking in good faith. How would you have expressed a delete opinion on that page if you had done so? And, if AfD were replaced with some other system of your choosing, how would you have handled this article in that system? Or do you think that deleting this article under any system does more harm than good?
Anyone who's been on this mailing list for 15 seconds knows you don't like AFD but I'm still not quite sure what you want to replace it with. You've suggested disbanding it altogether with the argument that it only deletes some 200 articles a day anyway. But disbanding it and replacing it with nothing would greatly increase the influx of new marginal articles. People who've previously been turned off by having their stuff deleted would be "back in business". The place would start filling up with articles on non-notable people, dolls, webcomics etc. ;)
But I know you're not actually a super-inclusionist. Just a couple of days ago you said on [[WT:AFD]]:
"Note: my personal opinion is that almost everything nominated on AFD does in fact deserve as quick, messy and painful a death as can be managed."
I'm not sure what to make of that. What system do you envision to achieve the following two aims?
a) Solve the PR problems currently generated by AFD.
b) Deal a quick, messy and painful death to almost everything currently handled by AFD.
But I'm probably misinterpreting, considering the opinions you've expressed elsewhere - like cautioning against haste in deletion - you were probably being ironic. Presumably what you want to do is:
b) Deal a slow, clean and painless death to almost everything currently handled by AFD.
Regards, Haukur
As I've been saying, I believe if we get more individual attention to the 1% of all debates that stir up these problems, we can effectively resolve this without cannibalising the existing system. The problem is that due to our consensus decision-making process, major deletion process reform cannot move forward (this was already true 1.5 years ago with [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]], which would probably have effectively tackled a lot of obvious "nn bio" articles). Tinkering around the edges only works for so long -- CSD can't be expanded forever.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
CSD can't be expanded forever.
Sure it can :) Just make [[WP:SNOW]] a speedy deletion criterion: "If you think an article doesn't have any chance of surviving AfD then just go ahead and delete it."
But if someone disagrees you'd better be prepared to undelete...
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Just make [[WP:SNOW]] a speedy deletion criterion: "If you think an article doesn't have any chance of surviving AfD then just go ahead and delete it."
I appreciate that your comment was intended humorously, but nevertheless: half of the point of AFD, to my mind, is that it may bring an article to the attention of someone who can improve it to the point where it doesn't need deleting.
Cheers,
N.
"Nick Boalch" n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote in message news:43DA3680.3030904@durham.ac.uk...
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Just make [[WP:SNOW]] a speedy deletion criterion: "If you think an article doesn't have any chance of surviving AfD then just go ahead and delete it."
I appreciate that your comment was intended humorously, but nevertheless: half of the point of AFD, to my mind, is that it may bring an article to the attention of someone who can improve it to the point where it doesn't need deleting.
So you're saying that nominating an article for AFD is a cunning way to jump the clean-up queue?
That's a Baldrick-worthy plan, and I don't even mean clever Baldrick from Series One.
As I have said before, if the AFD regulars put half the effort into cleanup that they do into AFD, there would be many more high-quality articles on Wikipedia.
HTH HAND
"Phil Boswell" wrote.
So you're saying that nominating an article for AFD is a cunning way to jump the clean-up queue?
That's a Baldrick-worthy plan, and I don't even mean clever Baldrick from Series One.
Certainly is. I have always resented this. Someone tells me: 'clean that up now, I mean now, or it's binned', and I think of them less well.
Charles
Phil Boswell wrote:
I appreciate that your comment was intended humorously, but nevertheless: half of the point of AFD, to my mind, is that it may bring an article to the attention of someone who can improve it to the point where it doesn't need deleting.
So you're saying that nominating an article for AFD is a cunning way to jump the clean-up queue?
No, as I suspect you know perfectly well from the context that is not at all what I'm saying.
I was drawing a distinction between AFD, a process which lasts for a few days and gives ample time for an article to be improved to a point where it's improvable, and CSD, where the article is just gone.
Does this make sense?
Cheers,
N.