True enough. But if its really isolated to the third-world than I'm sure someone can produce several examples of wonderful articles nixed by ignorant deletionists. Examples can be made and wrists can be slapped?
-S
On 1/13/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
It's only hopelessly obscure if you're looking at it from the first world :-)
On 13/01/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Some questions.
Is the procedure really failing? Are we all just nava-gazing? Is it as simple as David Goodman suggested several thousand words back when he explained that the important articles can only be saved by active, interested participation? Are we fighting for a hopelessly obscure
minority?
-S
On 1/12/07, Confusing Manifestation confusingmanifestation@gmail.com wrote:
What nobody seems to have mentioned is the fact that in AfD discussions admins are *supposed* to look at all the votes and the reasonaing behind them, and make an informed decision based on that (which is exactly what several posts have said should be done). Of course there are probably a fair few who don't, and in any case the informed decision is still liable to have a bit of bias behind it, but just saying "a thousand 'delete, nn' shouldn't count as much as one 'keep, here's a bunch of references'" isn't actually adding anything to the procedure that isn't (theoretically at least) already there.
CM
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l