[WikiEN-l] Partial solution to rampant deletionism

Fri Nov 7 04:21:17 UTC 2003

Rick wrote:

>Why should it be up to the "deletionists", as you choose to call those of us who use and value VfD, to improve garbage which is garbage to begin with and will always be garbage?  Please tell me how to improve [[Tsesungunille]], an article about a place that the original author made up.  Or [[Old Granny Sweat Weed ]], which no one can find any source to prove that it actually exists, except for the source cited in the article, which no one can find either.  Or [[Disappearing hoagies]], which is supposedly about sandwiches disappearing from the parking lot during Philadelphia Eagles games.  Or [[Abek]], about the supposed colonization of Brazil by Basques, which no one can verify.  Or [[The mode of production of free software ]], which is the Marxist theory of free software.  If we are ordered to improve these articles, I'd love to know how.
> 
>
If you redir them all to a dead end, no reader will ever see them again. If
after a lengthy period of time the redir hasn't been touched, just delete,
no muss, no fuss. If someone wants to defend the original text, they can do
it on the redir's talk page, have edit wars, debate the nature of an
encyclopedia, and it doesn't have to be in everybody's face all day.

>
>I'm also sick and tired of being ridiculed about the snooker guy.  At the time I placed it on VfD, the article consisted of "Born 1949. A snooker champion. He turned professional in 1971. He drank and smoked during tournaments helping sponsored tobacco advertising. Today he is better known for his throat cancer and a stand against tobacco industry."  Please tell me how I'm supposed to know that this is a meaningful article about an important person, based upon this information?
> 
>
I didn't know about this episode! If that had happened to me, I would have
shut up about deletion forever afterwards... It's a perfect demonstration
that the process needs changes, and koan-like, people should keep bringing
it up until you achieve enlightenment. :-)

Stan

>
>RickK
>
>James Duffy <jtdire at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think a statement by Jimbo, if he agrees, that it is up to the 
>>deletionists to improve articles (rather than >deleting them) will be 
>>somewhat useful for the non-deletionists. I am tired of seeing articles 
>>listed for >deletion, simply because somebody thinks it "sucks"; I am tired 
>>of being threatened, "You either improve >this article within the week; OR, 
>>we are gonna kill it!"
>>
>
>(A classic example was the proposed 
>deletion of an article on a famous one-time winner of the World Snooker 
>championships, someone known to millions worldwide but simply not known to 
>Americans, therefore thought of as not warranting a page. Though to be fair, 
>the proposer of this ludicrous deletion did realise from the laughter of the 
>rest of the world that he had made a mistake. Not all proposers of loopy 
>deletions accept that they made a mistake and crusade to delete perfectly 
>fine articles simply because /they/ don't accept the article.
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>