[WikiEN-l] Re: One Where We Blew It

Thu Sep 8 17:28:26 UTC 2005

Bryan Derksen wrote:

> Jack Lynch wrote:
>
>> This thread is a very good argument for getting rid of VfD. The main
>> thing I (and everyone I know who reads it) like about the wikipedia is
>> the access to detailed information on absurdly obscure info. If
>> someone searches for a web comic, it instantly becomes notable and
>> encyclopedic. What are the deletionists thinking??? Wiki is not paper,
>> and if you keep deleting, it won't be anything special as far as
>> encyclopedias go, either.
>
> Amazingly, I'm in full agreement with Sam. :)
>
> Just the other day I stumbled across an article on VfD for which the 
> entire text of the justification given for its nomination was:
>
> "NN, D"
>
> I'm hardly a newbie, but even for me it took a few minutes to figure 
> out that "NN" meant non-notable. I checked the edit history of the 
> editor who'd made the nomination and found about a dozen identical 
> VfDs for other articles made at the same time. I voted "keep" on every 
> last one of them because in my opinion the _nominations themselves_ 
> were not adequate. I didn't even bother reading the actual articles 
> and for all I know based on the justification given the nominator 
> hadn't read them either - he apparently didn't even bother to take the 
> time to type out whole words. Got accused of violating WP:POINT, of 
> course, but I completely stand by my actions.
>
> How about a policy whereby VfDs that don't adequately explain why the 
> nominator made it can be summarily deleted? If someone proposes 
> deleting an article they should at least show that they put effort 
> into determining whether deletion was warranted. 

Maybe they should be required to quote something from the article as 
proof that they have read it.  Since many of these articles are stubs 
anyway it should not put to much of a strain on their reading skills.

Ec