Maybe this is a rookie opinion, but I think that the AFD process tends to attract people who are focused on keeping wikipedia "uncluttered" and "relevant". They're always going to "err on the side of delete" and that's that. You can present anything to the people at AFD, but its a systemic habit. Those aren't just going to undo because of one person's polite suggestion.
While I happen to think deletionists could be restrained greatly without loss to Wikipedia (since the articles they're deleting are hardly well connected and widely viewed), I'm just one opinion. Over the years I've noticed a kind of institutional insecurity grow in Wikipedia, over fears our pedia is being perceived as full of unverified internet rabble.
-S
On 1/8/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever. In journalism, it is always easy to make out what is a 'plug' for someone and what is a genuine news-item. Guess Wikipedia could depend on local teams to also offer some cross-checking. FN
On 08/01/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/1/8, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
This is unfortunately not just a problem on the English wikipedia but
in
the Dutch one as well. and I would think in many other big language editions. As soon as something isn't covered by google people unfortunately assume it isn't notable :( .
Then again, where's the alternative? I can remember you making a big
case
of this on the Dutch Wikipedia once. Tracking things down, in all probability you had been reverting the removal of vandalism on the basis
of
it.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l