[Wikipedia-l] Deletion

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

At 05:12 AM 9/25/02 -0600, you wrote:
>At 06:39 AM 9/25/02 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>
> >Well, I don't know where I fall, but since my name seems to be one of those
> >coming up in the debates - examining my motives doesn't change them. My
> >motive is that there are some articles that in my opinion are worse than
> >no article, and I keep with that opinion.
>
>Yes you make many deletions, as I see from the log, most of which are fully
>justified. I only found one or two deleted entries that seemed interesting
>to me. (Although some substantial topics I'm not aware of the significance
>of may be there). [[infant mortality (computer)]], fascinating topic
>although it ought to be expanded to include all devices. [[Abermud]], the
>father of them all, although not the grandaddy, that was Adventure. I guess
>I want to see interesting topics remain, even if undeveloped.
>
> >But we ARE justifying and we ARE not just prepared to make a record, the
> >record is actually being made. Have you ever even looked at
> >[[Wikipedia:Deletion log]]? You'll find EVERY deletion of the past three
> >weeks there, with the justification given.
>
>Since it is such a rich resource for good articles perhaps it might extend
>back beyond 3 weeks and include an easy way to recover the text, small
>though it may be.
>
> >
> >> I find returning to Wikipedia and finding articles deleted (and
> >> unrecoverable) quite unpleasant.
>
>I just need to remember to "watch" any short articles I guess.
> >
> >And I find coming to Wikipedia and seeing an article called "Bronx Zoo"
> >with as its text "the zoo in the bronx" quite unpleasant.
>
>A close case...the Bronx Zoo will be an article, but much more extensive
>than that. Many deletions are of titles that will never make an article, I
>would probably prefer titles that will remain, but we all have talked
>extensively of that, I think without any real referent in experience other
>than anecdotal, thus unconclusively. I guess what would suffice is to
>ensure that somewhere, for example, in this case, in perhaps the article on
>New York City, an empty link remains to [[Bronx Zoo]], just as a pointer to
>encourage an article.

If you checked "what links here", there is at least one link, in the article on
the Bronx. It's been there, waiting for me or someone to write a real article,
for many months now.

I removed the text but left the empty article because I wasn't sure of what to
do--since it is a real article--but I had rather see nothing at all than 
"the zoo in
the bronx" without even links to zoo or bronx.
-- 
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org