I'm following AfD mainly to keep from deleting scientists etc-- nn academic is a very common reason, used sometimes without reading the article --and if its not a scientist but a scholar in the humanities, where you cant say 120 papers published, it's much worse. (Seriously, Ive seen articles with 3 honorary doctorates get nominated not just for AfD but for speedy) So I do see all the schools, and I tend to have a certain impatience about other people's notable schools. (my own HS is in there of course, and the elementary school just had a reunion, so maybe I will try it. )
In common-law based systems, the responsibility for keeping something like AfD consistent is up to something like Deletion Review--which is just as bad or worse, and 90% of the times decides to sustain deletions for the few that people bother with--its much easier to wait a while and recreate. There are some proposals for reform, so take a look.
In my opinion,about 1/2 the trouble with the real junk would be solved by making first edits & edits from ip addresses not visible immediately. Perhaps there's ,more that can be done programatically--spotting personal names in ip-addressed edits, even spotting personal names in edits for anything in the school category, etc. Rejecting articles under 15 words., and whatever ingenuity can suggest. But these sort of approaches seem to be against the ethos. --DGG
On 1/26/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/26/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the good thing is that both those of us who would like to get rid of many of these articles and those of us who would like to keep them, agree that AfD isn't working :-)
Mark
On 26/01/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/01/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/26/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
What, if any, are the notability criteria for schools?
The word "school" appears somewhere in the article. Seriously. There was a VfD a couple years back that garnered a
large
number of "keep, schools are inherently notable" votes, even though the article was a hoax and the school in question did not actually exist. Another VfD from around that time resulted in a "keep" for
the
same reasons, when article was actually a vanity piece about a one-person business that happened to have "school" as part of its name.
Yeah. It's an unfortunate reaction to various concerted efforts to purge the school articles. This is part of why the structure of en:wp AFD is demonstrably problematic.
AFD illustrates a number of things, one of which is that there's no consensus on notability on a number of topics.
I detest having to follow AFD closely to see if someone's trying to try another "establish a new consensus by deleting a bunch of things" runs. I often forget to for a week and then find that something horrible happened while my attention was elsewhere.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l