[WikiEN-l] Re: More AfD toxicity

[Sigvat Stensholt]

>Just curious...have you read the revision Sean saved? Because while 
>stubby, it was far from one or two context-less sentences. (I do think 
>brenneman has a point, but a lot of the messages on this matter seem to 
>think Sean's initial article was crap.)

>John

I have read the first version of Cart00ney yes. The version was not horridly 
"crappy", I mean, the article had enough context to define the subject and 
say a bit about it, but it DID fail to explain significance of the neologism.

Now I understand that it might be an idea to give an article more than nine 
minutes before tagging them for deletion, if the article gets improved five 
minutes later to the point where inclusion is obvious, the AFD debate looks 
rather silly.

In the case of Cart00ney, it doesn't matter all that much, several people on 
the debate are expressing concerns not only over the article's quality but 
also over the subject's suitability as a topic.

If the article is a speedy candidate, a speedy deletion can be done 
expediently without any grace period because a new and improved version can 
be made easily without an AFD debate getting in the way.

In general, articles on neologisms which don't explain significance are prime 
targets for the New Page Patrollers' AFD tags, and they will, and should, 
only take into account the merits of the article, not its creator.

Sjakkalle