[WikiEN-l] Re: More on WT:AFD

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com>

> It occurred to me that there are three totally different situations
> which could be described "deletion":
>
> Topic: The topic itself simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and even a
> brilliant article should be deleted. Examples: Dictionary definitions,
> un-notable people/groups. Solution: Delete and put a note on the
> topic.
> Article: The topic itself could belong in Wikipedia, but it doesn't
> deserve a whole article. Examples: Less well known songs of notable
> but not famous groups, less well known characters in fictional
> universes ("fancruft"). Solution: Merge with other articles.
> Content: The topic itself could make a good article, but this isn't
> it. As it stands it's worse than nothing. Examples: Copyright vio,
> substub, horribly POV etc. Solutions: Delete, reduce to stub, call for
> help to rewrite, trim, as appropriate.
>
> Perhaps the format for AFD could be modified to split nominations into
> these three categories. This could reduce some hurt for some article
> "owners" ("It's not that your writing is bad, it just doesn't belong
> here"), and also make it a bit clearer when an article is being
> deleted for the wrong reason. Ie, it's in the bad topic section, but
> the dispute is about poor writing or lack of comprehensiveness.
>
> Comments?

Mod +1, "insightful."