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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/26/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/01/07, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/26/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight(a)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(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.