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

Sat Sep 10 22:24:49 UTC 2005

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Phroziac wrote:

> What really bugs me is the deletionists who don't just say to delete
> it and tell why. They have to include personal attacks, and lame
> comments that just tend to make people mad. I've even witnessed admins
> doing this.
>
I see your point, Phroziac, but there are a couple of other issues
to consider:

* A surprising number of times, an article listed on AfD so squarely
(& if I may say it, routinely) fits the criteria that the entire
argument for deletion can be summed up in one or two words. An article
about (for example) a bartender in Eugene, Oregon that mixes a mean
gimlet is not worth an entry in Wikipedia based on that information
alone; depending on my mood at the time, I might explain that tending
bar does not make a person worthy of inclusion, or just label it as
"vanity" & move on to the next item.

* Many times, again, the reasons for deletion are so clear that
there is little more to be said. If I encounter a situation like this
would it be better to write "Delete. I agree" after my vote than to just
add "Delete"?

* Some of these nominations for deletion are so poorly written that
they beg to be made fun of -- or otherwise get under my skin. I find
that I tend to respond to these nominees much in the spirit that they
are written in: if a vanity article is written in Leet Speak, I'll
likely substitute one or two e's with a "3" in my a comment. If an
article is written professionally, I'll give it more respect.

* One thing that puzzles me is that if an article is nominated for
failing to establish notability, but the subject is notable & this
claim is repeated on AfD, then why doesn't the articles' supporters
make the needed improvements to the article immediately? Not only
would this immediately improve Wikipedia for end users, but it may
accelerate a consensus towards Keep? (I've withdrawn nominations
for articles in these cases.)

* And lastly, sometimes I contribute a vote/opinion about an article
if only one or two other persons have contributed, even if all I
have written is "Delete": I don't want someone wikilawyering a clear
choice for deletion because not enough people have expressed an
opinion about the article. (And I've made the opposite contribution,
too.)

In short, sometimes a detailed argument is needed on AfD; other times,
it's a case of "Fish. Barrel. Gun."

Geoff