[Wikipedia-l] Why oh why resurrect nonarticles????

Daniel Mayer maveric149 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 28 05:49:20 UTC 2002

On Wednesday 28 August 2002 09:49 am, Karen wrote:
> Stubs like that one aren't any use to the wikipedia and 
> they deserve to be deleted. True? Totally blank entries 
> with no content confuse the issue and deserve to be 
> deleted. True? Vandalism and gibberish deserve
> to be deleted. True? If you don't know for certain that a 
> page deserves to go, but you think it does, we have a 
> deletion queue to put it in. True? 

Again I totally agree and I call a vote on these very points so that we can 
be done with this (I'm personally sick of getting 3 Wikipedia-L digests a 
day). This should be done on the talk page of the deletion policy. At:  

> BACK THE VOTE BUTTON!!!!!!! It made things so much 
> simpler...

I agree. The current setup seems odd to me though; it is now much easier to 
outright delete a page instead of listing it on the deletion queue. If a 
sysop has any question whether a page should be deleted the sysop has to 
perform /more/ work in order to list it on the deletion queue than to simply 
delete it outright. That may be why some sysops are treading into the gray 
area with deletions that should probably be listed on the vote for deletion 
page for a few days first.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list