Uh, I'm one of said non-admin CVU-ers, and I don't encourage that view. On the other hand, I could CSD a half dozen highly notable subjects on wikipedia simply because the articles make no assertion of the notablity. The fact is, that the vast majority of speedy deletions are shite articles, either vandalism/vanity, myspace, external redirects, etc. Are you saying those shouldn't be speedied? We all know that AfD is totally free from vote-stacking and any other forum of corruption. *cough*I
-swatjester
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
As for "an article with no claim to notability", I actually have no idea what that phrase means.
An article has to establish the notability of its subject. If it doesn't do that, it's subject to speedy deletion.
...I recite.
No, it has to *assert* the notability of its subject. When clearing up CAT:CSD I see a lot of speedy taggings where the tagger simply figured "sure, there's an assertion of notability there, but I don't think it's good enough". Wrong.
The question of whether an article establishes notability is not one that can, or should, be answered by a single admin working very very fast to delete as much stuff as quickly as possible. Unfortunately there are a few admins who seem to think "well, it's tagged for speedy, who am I to judge? That would be elitist." Oh, and let's not forget the non-admin CVUers who encourage that view ...
<snip/>
Cheers,
-- MarkGallagher
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l