[WikiEN-l] Deletionism fails to serve the readers

[Gwern Branwen]

On  0, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> scribbled:
> On 6/6/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On  0, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> scribbled:
> > > This is quite common on AfD, though, that articles are deleted because
> > > they are too short or stubs.  Truthfully, I doubt there are many other
> > > editors who are deleting stuff to make sure they are too short then
> > > nominating them for deletion, but there are organism and botany
> > > articles that I have written or watch that are a single line of text.
> > > Was there really no material to preserve after the copy vios were
> > > deleted?  Could folks who edit pulp fiction have been asked?  Could it
> > > have been left alone after the copy vios were deleted if you simply
> > > didn't know enough about the topic?
> > >
> > > KP
> >
> > 1) I didn't see anything - the H.P. Lovecraft was literally more comprehensive than any non-copyvio stuff. (Besides, wouldn't the non-copyvio stuff be tainted as a derivative work?)
> > 2) I don't know anyone who works on pulp fiction. I know of a Fiction WikiProject, but that's about it.
> > 3) As a blank page or sub-stub at best, I guess. Doesn't sound appealing.
> >
> > --
> > Gwern
> > Inquiring minds want to know.
> >
>
> I see lots of ways around this, like popping a sentence in the
> article, or asking the Lovecraft editors to look it over, or a dozen
> other things that would have taken less collective Wikipedia work than
> an AfD.
>
> Another problem, imo, is that there ARE deletionists.  That's why SCA
> and Rock climbing get nominated in the first place, and many other
> credible topics, simply because some editors are looking for something
> to delete.  Then we get nominations like
> idon'tknowanythingaboutitsoitcan'tbenotable..
>
> There is seldom a single nomination among the ones I look at that is
> compliant with AfD procedures--they're nominated for the wrong
> reasons, they're nominated by people who don't know anything about the
> topic, they're nominated because they're stubs (stubs aren't
> disallowed on Wikipedia), they're nominated because the nominator
> thinks it might not be notalbe (it is Articles  For Deletion).
>
> It is frustrating, and it's degenerating and getting worse.
>
> KP

There's something I don't understand about your recent emails. You keep mentioning AfDs and listing things which would've been easier than an AfD, but I can't figure out what an AfD has to do with matters - there was never an AfD associated with Sonia Greene, just a redirection (which is certainly easier than an AfD, I am not disputing :).

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070606/1d643253/attachment.pgp