[WikiEN-l] Why changing the deletion process is a bad idea

Tue Sep 13 15:29:48 UTC 2005

On 9/13/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh please no. Name anything that could harm wikipedia that doean't get
> > delt with as a speedy or a copyvio.
> 
> Deleting encyclopedic articles harms the encyclopedia.  Just because a
> "consensus" of professional deletionists decide that some article or
> another isn't "notable" doesn't make it unencyclopedic.  See
> Snowspinner's post that started this iteration of this discussion.
> 
> Kelly
That's the attitude I'm talking about. If anything gets deleted, it's
blamed on deletimonists, whether involved or not. I said wrongly
deleted stuff should be put on VFU more. It's easy to complain and say
it won't work because of deletionists without trying. VFU gets a
disproportionate amount of visitors from AFD, not because deletionism
is rampant, but because there's so much drivel being deleted that
doesn't deserve to be resurrected.

Deleting encyclopedic articles harms Wikipedia, that's true. But
keeping unencyclopedic ones hurts Wikipedia too. Inclusionists are on
the other extreme end of the spectrum and just as wrong.

--Mgm