On 9/23/02 10:27 AM, "Andre Engels" engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I just don't have time to monitor the deletion police. I did notice a proposed deletion of [[poverty]] a dismal article about a dismal subject, which I thought rather unwise. It would seem on obvious candidate for editing and addition of more substantial material rather than deletion.
I objected to the deletion proposal for [[poverty]]. It was a lousy, pathetic stub, but it's a serious topic which Wikipedia should cover. Deleting that stub only puts off the day when we write an article on it.
Well, if you want to write an article on poverty, or want to ask someone else to write it, then by all means do so. I still don't see how the existing definition would in any way have helped you, nor how the non-existence of the page in any way would stop you.
Some of the issue here is that Fred and tarquin shouldn't have to justify themselves; if they object, then the issue should be closed. Why? Because deletions are discontinuities. Non-deletion isn't.
And the policy should be set up that such objections shouldn't have to be raised very often.