On 6/10/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Except that since there seem to be more articles requiring improvement
than
there are people willing or able to devote time to improving them, the
question is not "would we want the article if it were improved?", but "do
we
think that the article in its current state is beneficial to the quality
of
the encyclopedia?".
I'd say the key question is closer to "do we think that the article in its
current state is beneficial to the job of writing an encyclopedia".
Wikipedia is, after all, a continual work in progress.
On 10/06/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/10/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Since it isn't, it gets put through AfD to
force someone to put
up a real reason. I don't think there's anything wrong with
this, other than people write this kind of article in the first
place instead of providing the notability themselves.
If you have been nominating, for deletion, articles which you believe
could (or even should) be improved rather than deleted, please cease
and desist right now.
—C.W.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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