Au contraire: there are uncontroversially encyclopedic topics whose
articles are being brought up for deletion. That is precisely what
prompted the formation of this group.
My bigger point is that the Rescue Squadron sidesteps the usual
talk-page bickering and goes straight to the heart of things -- fixing
the article. If, once the article is fixed, it still gets deleted,
then so be it. The point is to demonstrate that some of these
"borderline" articles are actually mainstream articles that happen to
get parsed as nonencyclopedic /because of the way they're written/.
On 7/13/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Articles are not "uncontroversially
encyclopedic" when they being brought up
for deletion because of their lack of encyclopedic content or nature. A
taskforce improving articles that don't have an AFD nomination would be more
in line with your flawed vision of what the project constitutes. But when
the project extensively mentions comabting what they see as unnecessary
deletions in its intro and includes a direct link to AFD, then it's not a
resource for improving articles that need help the most, but a project for
making sure borderline articles get kept. That's inclusioism.
On 7/13/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm willing to practice euthanasia on them
I'm willing to block you for being disruptive if you delete an
article on a notable topic that could have been improved just to
oppose people trying to fix them.
-Phil
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog -
http://wikip.blogspot.com