[WikiEN-l] Nominations for deletion, too short, not trivia

[K P]

On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/06/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains
> > numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles"
> > without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him
> > would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be
> > useful."
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan
> >
> > In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it
> > should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to
> > decide.
>
> This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion
> is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and
> give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than
> AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs
> to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to
> raise this question
>
> And you're complaining about this as an example of "deletionism"?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>

Hmmm, I know, it seems incredibly stupid that NOMINATING something for
deletion would make an editor think you wanted it deleted.  It's
amazing what morons pass for Wikipedia editors Articles FOR
Deletion--and people go around thinking it FOR deleting articles.
It's just stunning.  Simply stunning.

It was originally a speed delete, too, by the uncertain person who
nominated it FOR deletion, based upon that editor's uncertainty if
there was a COI or other uncertain reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan&diff=133200388&oldid=122713427

To think, a moron assuming Articles FOR deletion means articles FOR
deletion.  It's just stunning, isn't it?

KP, resident idiot