On 6/6/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 0, K P <kpbotany(a)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.