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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P <kpbotany(a)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_Ca…
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(a)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=13…
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(a)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.