[WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

[David Gerard]

Bryan Derksen (bryan.derksen at shaw.ca) [050909 02:05]:

> Just the other day I stumbled across an article on VfD for which the 
> entire text of the justification given for its nomination was:
> "NN, D"
> I'm hardly a newbie, but even for me it took a few minutes to figure out 
> that "NN" meant non-notable. I checked the edit history of the editor 
> who'd made the nomination and found about a dozen identical VfDs for 
> other articles made at the same time. I voted "keep" on every last one 
> of them because in my opinion the _nominations themselves_ were not 
> adequate.


Don't you know it's a terrible personal attack to question the motives of a
deletion nomination? And calling a bogus nomination "bogus" just because it
has no connection whatsoever with the actual deletion policy is apparently
grievously insulting too.


> I didn't even bother reading the actual articles and for all I 
> know based on the justification given the nominator hadn't read them 
> either - he apparently didn't even bother to take the time to type out 
> whole words. Got accused of violating WP:POINT, of course, but I 
> completely stand by my actions.


Tony Sidaway gets accused of that as well for closing nominations per the
letter of the policy rather than the conventions of some VFD regulars.


> How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the 
> nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes deleting 
> an article they should at least show that they put effort into 
> determining whether deletion was warranted.


The VFD regulars have bitterly resisted each and any attempts in this
direction, because then they might have to think or something before
nominating.


- d.