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

[K P]

On 6/7/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05/0
> > 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
>
> It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should
> be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were
> nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at
> random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating
> work for everyone, with little benefit.
>
> If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or
> something and start a discussion on the talk page. Nominating for AfD
> is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do
> people think?"
>
> Steve
>


Yup, again, title the project Articles FOR Deletion, then yell at
folks who think it's a project FOR deleting articles.

After all, some folks may be unsure, but no one is nominating articles
they think should be kept.

I like how my comments get called "stupid" but my initial reply was
censored by the list monitors--posts calling other posters stupid or
their comments stupid should be censored first, this would mean that
flaming nasty replies to being told your comments are stupid don't
have be monitored, because they're not sent.  Or maybe it was an admin
calling my comments stupid, ala the infamous douche bag episode.

KP