[WikiEN-l] Re: Proper response to "crap" AfD nominations

Fri Sep 30 10:22:04 UTC 2005

Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> If a nomination is crap, explain why in the AfD. If your explanations  
> are convincing, people will vote to keep. If nominators notice that  
> their nomination has been buried by a near-unanimous string of keeps,  
> they'll be embarrassed and stop making problematical nominations.  This 
> procedure has the great advantage in that it works and that it  does not 
> making people angry thereby provoking counter-responses  directed at 
> your manner rather than at the merit of the topic.

It also has great disadvantage - it doesn't work! People continue to 
vote "OMG TRAFFIC CIRCLE DELETE".
> 
> In _any_ AfD discussion, it is much more helpful to address the  
> _particular_ article under discussion than to pass blanket judgments  on 
> an entire class of articles. Nominations that say "oh cmon its a  
> traffic circle" and "roadcruft" are not helpful. Neither are  responses 
> that say "all traffic circles are notable." Even if you  believe that 
> all traffic circles should be deleted or that all  traffic circles 
> should be kept, neither of these extremes is a widely  held opinion and 
> repetitive, strident assertions of these general  principles are not 
> going to create a consensus. (Neither do  repetitive, strident 
> assertions that there _is_ consensus in areas  where there actually is 
> not).

How else would one argue from the basis that yes, all named traffic 
circles are local landmarks and thus "notable"? The whole "notability" 
thing just doesn't work, because there's no way to counter "nn roadcruft".

I wonder how people would argue their keep vote if I were to nominate a 
small town of population 40-50 with the only edits by Rambot. What other 
argument would apply to a generic small town than "all towns deserve 
articles"?
> 
> When nominating a traffic circle, give reasons why _this particular_  
> traffic circle shouldn't be kept. Two of the nominations mentioned  
> above do this, although not in a very coherent way. When arguing that  
> an article on a traffic circle should be kept, say why _this  
> particular_ traffic circle is worth keeping. Is the article  
> particularly good? Do traffic reports in the city reference it?

Playing devil's advocate, traffic reports mention minor streets. Doesn't 
mean they should be kept.
> 
> The reason for doing this has nothing to do with The Principle Of The  
> Thing. The reason for doing it is that these techniques _work_.

Unless it's "nn cruft". They they fall flat against an unstoppable 
stream of assholes.
> 
> (Another technique that works for keeping articles is to improve them  a 
> bit _before_ entering the nomination discussion).

Someone did that for White Horse Circle. It didn't help:

#  00:21, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (tweak)
# 00:18, 29 September 2005 . . Gpietsch (added enough to prevent this 
article from getting deleted ;-))
# 01:25, 22 September 2005 . . Aranda56 (Placed VFD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Horse_Circle

The only argument that makes sense against "Oh cmon its a traffic circle 
nn Delete" is "fuck you, asshole".

And I see that Calton continues to be an asshole:

I'll note that SPUI deleted the AfD tag in the article. He's getting 
passionate and breaking rules over a traffic circle? --Calton | Talk 
02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)