[WikiEN-l] deletionism in popular culture

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:52 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Deletion is good because it totally dispenses with junk.
>>
>> Parsing... "Destruction = [qualitative superlative] because
>> [destruction] [completely destroys] [things that need destroying]."
>>
>> Please let us all pledge to henceforth refrain from employing circular
>> logic in our arguments. And likewise let us pledge to point and giggle
>> at these  circulars whenever we have to see them.
>
> If  everyone agreed that "junk" was synonymous with "things that need
> destroying", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Some people think
> that "junk" is synonymous with "things that should be stored
> indefinitely for the public to access".

We have a wide range of reasons to delete.  Some of them are fairly
universally agreed to (x is a BLP violation of someone who isn't
notable enough to have a bio, y is commercial spam for a business not
worthy of having an article, z is a partisan hit piece WP:BATTLE
violation content fork of other articles that cover the general topic,
etc) some are more controversial (the whole notability / deletionism /
inclusionism debate).

It's fair to say that the current technology, and Wikipedia user
community standards, don't address all the reasons for deletion with
specific focused responses which are optimal for that reason for
deletion.  I don't necessarily feel PWD is the entirely appropriate
response - but it's a worthy alternative to bounce around while aiming
at better solutions, and it could stand as part of an overall improved
response.



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com