Bjorn,
My experience is the opposite. I frequently edit pages nominated for deletion explaining their notability, expanding them, cleaning them up and provided sources.
Saving such articles on "Articles for Deletion" and noting you have made done so is by far the most effective method of ensuring the retention of an article. If a majority of people have voted to delete it based on the original substandard article, I leave messages on their talk page advising them that the article has been changed and asking them politely to have a fresh look at the article.
The outcome of doing this has always been that the article has been retained in much better shape. People vote to delete articles generally because the article has problems with verification, notability and presentation.
Fixing these problems changes their mind about the merits of an article.
Regards.
Keith
Keith User:Capitalistroadster
On 10/27/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
You ever seen a long running edit conflic where neither side with compramise? I have. they generaly end in one side or the other implodeing. You know who wins such conflicts? Not the side that was right or even the side with more people on. No it is the side which has the greater wiki warfare skills. The ones who know how to play the politics and their oponents emotions. The ones who have no problem with fighting a battle for months at a time. The ones who know how to play the intensity of the conflict so as to maxism stress on thier oponent.
That is a completely made up scenario. Edit wars last because the status quo remain unchanged. When page blankings become the new deletion system, it becomes easier to resolve the standstill.
Most articles nominated for deletion are about something that the nominator didn't think was "notable." But the nominator is usually not an expert on the subject and usually has added anything to the article. The article is also usually very small. Since most people think it is a complete waste of time (I'm guessing here) to edit an article that will be deleted, they will refrain from it. The only reason to edit the article is if you think that your edits will make it so that the article will not be deleted. But it is much more effective to ARGUE on the AFD page why you think that the article should be kept. It is also more convenient to write something like "Keep. This person has been on the cover of a magazine see [bla bla]" than to write the same thing in a Wikipedia article.
That's why sane editors avoid AFD - it turns productive work into pointless arguing. Not so with page blanking as deletion. Why? Mostly because those who would vote Keep can instead add their arguments as facts to the article without threat of it being completely erased. A Keep vote becomes productive work.
As a side note, I think with page blanking as deletion, many more articles would be deleted from Wikipedia. But that is not such a big deal since mistakes can be rectified. Someone who votes delete only has to look at the article in its current version and decide for him or herself whether he or she thinks it merits for inclusion in Wikipedia or not. Someone who votes keep has to go through the page history and decide that any revision, despite that someone has voted delete on it, should not be excluded from Wikipedia.
-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l