On 10/26/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/10/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
For example, I doubt if I could name half-a-dozen Particle Physicists. I'll bet you there are ten times that many who deserve an article of their own, but you'd be hard put to it to convince some of the hard-core AFD deletionists of it, because they simply vote "nn, never heard of them" without even giving the appearance of reading the article.
Today's VFD zen: the first twelve of fifteen entries on this days page are nominated simply as "NN, D. ~~~~" (and there's more after that). I swear this becomes self-parody sometimes...
I'm half-tempted to nominate a short but reasonably notable bio I wrote this afternoon for deletion, simply to see if anyone would concur with "nn, d" ([[Fleury Mesplet]], eighteenth century French printer with silly name = obscure), but I fear that it might be a little obviously Making A Point.
Be careful, you might just get your article deleted.
And if it did get deleted, you'd be swarmed with users who don't actually care a whit about content saying "KD, valid AfD" in the undeletion forum. After all, they've voted themselves a consensus that says undeletion is about _process_, not _content_.
Then you'd have the "enforcement admins" camping the spawn... er, keeping the article title on their watchlists so they could be the first to speedy delete it as a recreation, and they'll even cite you the Wikipedia Revised Code reference as they do it.
And if you're really unlucky, you'll have a wikistalker editor or admin watching your further contributions to make sure you don't try to insert that deleted content in to a related article! Consensus said delete! How dare you consider trying to find a useful place for your work!
I simply cannot imagine a plausible end to this nonsense at this time.
Knowing that deletion is easy power, and creation is powerful but difficult work, imagine where the teenaged populists tend to congregate. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused