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

Sun Sep 11 00:07:21 UTC 2005

I can agree, but i wasn't actually referring to that. I'm referring to
things like (and directly quoting here)...

Get a grip.
Wow. I thought this was an encyclopedia.
Next will be an article on the old lady who gives out boxes of raisins
instead of candy on Halloween.

On 9/10/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> 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 (I've withdrawn nominations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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

-- 
signature