On 9/14/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/05, Kelly Martin
<kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'll definitely agree with that. I'm
totally in favor of speedy keeps
for sketchy, overly vague nominations.
There are occasions where a one-word reason for deletion is enough.
For instance, take a absolutely clear-cut vanity article. You can sum
up the reason for deletion in one word: "Vanity. ~~~~". You could
write a sentence, or two, or three, in support of that, but it would
never actually say more than the original statement.
Unless, of course, this is not what you meant by "sketch, overly vague
nominations". If so, please elaborate!
I can't think of a single example where "Vanity. ~~~~" is not overly
vague. I haven't objected to such nominations (that I recall) but
certainly feel annoyed that the nominator cannot be bothered to be a
little more specific when asking for consensus to remove an article.
"Vanity. No Google hits. ~~~~" is OK with me. "Vanity. Wikipedia
shouldn't be used as a home page" is OK. "Vanity. These
accomplishments aren't encyclopedic enough. ~~~~" is also a valid
nomination in my mind.
"Vanity. ~~~~" doesn't give enough indication of the nominator's state
of mind, so doesn't seem intended to actually start a discussion about
why the article was nominated. Instead, it seems an appeal to "just
get this thing over with" that I find disrespectful to the newbies
that frequently make the error of posting vanity articles. That's why
I object to vague and uninformative nominations; we're supposed to
discuss the article, and the nominator cannot be bothered to start the
discussion.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused