On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote in message news:605709b90602270833m677b8f47w4d9a5b664859a91c@mail.gmail.com...
On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or bickering over the quality of the source?
This seems to ignore the observable fact that, for some Wikipedians, deletion of articles on popular culture, or in common parlance, "cruft", is seen as an end in itself. The strategy being followed seems to be to systematically raise the verifiability standards to exclude online sources, then denude the article of such sources, then move to delete the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable. Another technique is to browbeat those with whom one disagrees, repeating false claims that their opinion may be ignored.
[snip]
In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed the worst kind of incivility.
Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow them... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%... is a fine example.
I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote (bar one AFAICT) rather offensive also.
The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template). Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
Something stinks.