On 6/6/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/06/07, K P kpbotany@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...
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@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=133...
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@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.
Yes, last time I thought I knew about something, then wasn't able to find much to confirm what I thought I knew, I asked another editor to investigate the subject (a smart 16-year-old who got crap at RfA for being 16), she couldn't find anything and suspected it of being a hoax, so I nominated it for deletion (well, someone did, I couldn't find the instructions for doing a nomination), aexplaining that I didn't know if it was a hoax, and explaining what I and the other editor had done to try to figure it out, and the article was deleted.
I don't get the feeling that this is what is going on in AfD, though. People are simply finding articles, somehow, on obscure topics, outside of their scope of knowledge, and nominating them to be deleted without looking into it any further. There are simply no end of ways to finding someone more competent on a topic than you yourself are--find them, ask them about it. But, for some reason, this is far removed from the mind of the deletionist.
I think there's some power in deleting articles or something, and that's what's really going on.
KP