[WikiEN-l] Deletionism fails to serve the readers

[Todd Allen]

Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On  0, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> scribbled:
>   
>> http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=3803
>>
>> - d.
>>     
>
> "And then, while I was at it, I re-created another entry recently deleted for not being notable enough — that of Sonia Greene, a pulp fiction writer and publisher of the 1920s who was briefly married to H.P. Lovecraft. Of all the insulting things to have happen, her entry had been erased, and people searching for her were redirected to an entry on Lovecraft. How's that for you, future scholars? Looking for information about a minor pulp fiction writer? Too bad she's not notable — but we can redirect you to an entry on a guy she was married to for two years. (A guy, I might add, who pissed her off so much that she burned all his letters when they divorced.) Yuck."
>
> Dammit, I *hate* it when people mis-characterize the [[Sonia Greene]] thing. Like I told the Wired guy as well, Valrith didn't blank and redirect to H. P. Lovecraft because Sonia wasn't notable, he did it because the entire article was a tissue of multiple copyvios and there wasn't any material to be preserved or anything else that could be done (neither he nor I were Greene experts).
>
> --
> Gwern
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>   
Now, don't go confusing the situation with facts. It's those evil
deletionists at work. Why, we'd probably delete the Lovecraft article
too if they'd let us get away with it.

Folks, -cutting is a normal part of the editorial process-. It's part of
what good editors do. Does that mean it's always tremendously pleasant
to watch a proofreader read your draft, that you thought was a shining
gem, muttering "This bit's not that relevant, this part's
editorializing, this paragraph makes no sense, this part goes on way too
long about a minor point, this sentence needs to be in context, oh,
yeah, and you forgot a comma here." Not necessarily. But it is a
necessary part of the editing process.

As to a question above, "if a deletionist is submitting an article for
deletion on a subject they don't know about...", let's have your
attention for a moment please, to where the basis is for notability in
policy. Core policy. As in, not just a guideline. You can find it at
WP:V, and you'll find this paragraph in it:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores
material. Material that is *challenged or likely to be challenged* needs
a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations
should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable,
third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

As soon as that deletion nomination goes up, in effect, the entire
article is being challenged. It's -your responsibility- to then show
that the challenge is not valid. And sometimes it is, sometimes there
aren't any reliable independent sources! Now, that doesn't mean a person
shouldn't do some looking for sources before making an AfD nomination,
there's no need to waste everyone's time if that reveals plenty of
source material. But if none is readily available, and none is cited in
the article, it's pretty reasonable that someone will say "Well, does
that sourcing we need even exist?"

Want to never again see an article you create nominated for AfD, or even
see anyone think real loud about it? Put good, solid, independent
sources into it from the -very first edit-. (You are using good, solid,
independent sources, right? So just say what they are!)

Yes, I'm probably taking a bit of an irritated tone here, but I'm
irritated at seeing "deletionist" thrown around as though it were an
epithet. Part of an editor's job is to cut. Not everyone likes doing
that, and that's fine, but we certainly don't need to vilify those who
do. It's as necessary and healthy a part of the editing process as adding.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070606/d862d1c3/attachment-0001.pgp