On 6/6/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
On 6/6/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, K P kpbotany@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
- 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?)
- I don't know anyone who works on pulp fiction. I know of a Fiction WikiProject, but that's about it.
- 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.
The title of this thread is "Deletionism fails to serve the readers" Not "Redirectionists fail to serve readers."
Again, like all the folks who tell me Aritcles FOR Deletion isn't about deletion, I get confused when titles say one thing and content is supposed to be something else I'm not necessarily privy to. I assumed it was posted as another example in response to the thread about deletionists--again, using the title of the thread as a clue.
KP