On 9/2/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
K P wrote:
On 9/2/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Today, Ja Rule was nominated for deletion because, "There are no references or sources to back up any of the information in the article."
I still think it should be deleted, at least all content that is not referenced, after all, he may be a hoax.
Ha.
On 9/2/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Can't we community sanction stupid Afds?
Penalizing people for "being stupid" is an interesting approach. Tell us more. We could make a list of all the stupid people can be, and accord penalties for each... :-\
-stevertigo
In all fairness this is one of the few times I've seen anyone make a monumental mistake in a nomination and realize it, but that wouldn't have made the post any fun. Still it would taken less of his time to realize that Ja Rule is a bit too well known to be nominated for deletion for being non-notable, than it took to prepare the AfD.
But, still, no penalties for people smart enough to realize when they've acted stupidly. And, Steve, I think it would be too long for a list.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[[List of stupid things]], maybe? (Anyone actually creating that gets a troutwhack, especially since it'll be 50 gigabytes long and still far from completion.)
Also, I fail to see how the occasional poor decision in nominating for AfD leads people to yell that it's broken. The AfD quite correctly attracted tons of keep opinions and was correctly snowballed as such. Looks like AfD worked just fine right there, a page that shouldn't have been deleted was never in danger of it.
That being said, lack of sourcing -is- a serious issue. I had to remove a whole section from that article about "Disputes". Musician or not, it is a BLP, and we can't just have unsourced stuff about legal problems and the like in there.
But what was more important, removing the improper material from a BLP or nominating it for deletion? In my opinion, cleaning up a BLP.
Two of the recent nominations were as I mentioned before, DAVID CREWS and the one with the absurdly long name, both made a little extra work for people because the nominators couldn't have been bothered to at least move them to a correct name and speedy the absurd spellings or titles.
And, it's not an occasional poor decisions, there are poor decisions all of the time, every day on AfD, nominations because an article hasn't been edited in 2 months or something, nominations because an academic isn't as notable as a pokeman card, and when the nominator can bother to follow it for all this time, but can't spend a second to clean it up.
I think you should be required to tag and do the minimum clean-up if you can't be bothered to check to see if the subject is notable, at the very least.
I also wonder if allowing people to nominate in in the first 30 days or so is such a good idea. I personally think all these people who join and start AfDing right away are simply sock puppets.
KP