[WikiEN-l] Nominations for deletion, too short, not trivia

[David Goodman]

Much though I agree with KP in almost all of this, I disagree about
putting articles up when unsure, or when there seems to be nothing
substantial there, or when one suspects a hoax. I think it perfectly
reasonable, when one sees something unlikely and wants to call it to
attention, or when one see something one thinks questionable and isn't
sure what rule applies; the thing to do is to ask--to ask one another
individually--and I answer and ask such queries daily--or to ask the
community.

I've sometimes done it; I've sometimes suggested it--and I'm an
inclusionist myself, most of the time. But I do not accept that any
particular WPedian or even admin is able to understand everything, and
I am not under the delusion that I am an exception. I recognize this
as a community project, and I recognize that others have a right and
responsibility to decide. I have made a few really stupid mistakes of
my own, and even apart from that, I expect to be correct most of the
time, but not always.

afd should be treated as an opportunity for discussion and improvement
of articles. I am not sure why it hasnt been renamed when the other
SfDs have been.


On 6/5/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05/06/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains
> > > numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles"
> > > without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him
> > > would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be
> > > useful."
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan
> > >
> > > In other words, the nominator himself/herself doesn't know if it
> > > should be deleted, so they've put it up for deletion for others to
> > > decide.
> >
> > This is just *stupid*. This is what putting something up for deletion
> > is *for* - saying "This article may be deleted, please look at it and
> > give your opinion" - and there is no more effective way to do it than
> > AFD, for all its faults. I have no idea why you believe someone needs
> > to be personally prejudiced towards deleting the article in order to
> > raise this question
> >
> > And you're complaining about this as an example of "deletionism"?
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> >
>
> Hmmm, I know, it seems incredibly stupid that NOMINATING something for
> deletion would make an editor think you wanted it deleted.  It's
> amazing what morons pass for Wikipedia editors Articles FOR
> Deletion--and people go around thinking it FOR deleting articles.
> It's just stunning.  Simply stunning.
>
> It was originally a speed delete, too, by the uncertain person who
> nominated it FOR deletion, based upon that editor's uncertainty if
> there was a COI or other uncertain reasons.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co%C5%9Fkun_Can_Aktan&diff=133200388&oldid=122713427
>
> To think, a moron assuming Articles FOR deletion means articles FOR
> deletion.  It's just stunning, isn't it?
>
> KP, resident idiot
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.