On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Add-on -- people should give up on the notability
excuse for deletion.
A thought that struck me whilst I was ranting angrily the other day.
We go to a deletion debate, and say "keep, notable" (or vice versa).
Is the unspoken rider to that:
a) "keep, notable [and thus we are permitted to have an article on this
topic]"
b) "keep, notable [and thus we are entitled to have an article on this topic]"
c) "keep, notable [and thus we *ought* to have an article on this topic]"
(and conversely for "delete, not notable")
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Oftentimes I'm voting keep because the nominator FOR deletion didn't
bother to offer a real and valid reason it should be deleted. This
did lead to a couple of articles being kept that I felt should be
deleted, but I'm not giving the deletionists any ground.
Sometimes I really don't know whether or not an article should be
kept, even after I've done research (which is never done by the
deletionists), or even when it's an article on a topic in my area. If
it's an area I know, and the deletionist doesn't even know what the
article is about, why are they nominating it for deletion in the first
place?
Other times it is clear to me than an article should be kept ([[Rock
climbing]], my all time favorite deletionist nomination) or not.
I think AfD and CfD are a waste of time and controlled entirely by
deletionist who are changing Wikipedia's way of doing things without
community support (particularly in the case of CfD where everything is
being moved from categories to lists by deletionists who can't explain
what either a category or list is or does).
KP