You don't address the point. The onus should be on the
person wanting to permanently remove information as to
why it should be removed, rather than the author to
justify why it should not. This has nothing to do with
whether or not I want an article on every building
that has ever existed.
Mark
--- Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Bullcrap. Your characterizations are only in your
own mind. If somebody can't be bothered to let us
know why they care about an article, why should we?
I constantly argue that all of the individual town
and cities created by bot should be kept, despite
repeated attempts at mass deletions. And I
constantly vote keep for all articles about towns,
even one line stubs. But where do we go on this
path? I vote delete on schools, because from high
schools we go to junior high schools, to elementary
schools, to pre-schools. We have an article on
every single company that has ever existed? We have
an article on every single building that has ever
existed? Do you seriously think that these are
articles we should have in an encyclopedia?
RickK
Mark Richards <marich712000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
You could make a case that it is the responsiblity
of
the author (whoever that is?!) to provide
references,
but notability is just a weasel word for 'I'm not
interested in it'.
Mark
--- Nicholas Knight wrote:
John Lee wrote:
> Institute new policy? I'm not sure what you
mean,
really. All I was
> trying to say was that if contributors don't
make
it clear through an
> article they wrote how its topic is
encyclopedic,
then the onus isn't on
others to hunt high and low for a way to verify
it. Mark Richards was
saying the onus isn't on contributors to
prove
their articles are
> encyclopedic. I was saying that, in my opinion,
it
is.
The core concept isn't what I see as flawed (in
fact
it's almost
tautological), it's the use of it as an excuse to
delete things.
Speaking of verifiability, I just noticed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:VfD-Ballerium
from a recent post
on the list (one of Eric B. and Rakim's
deleted
articles' deletion
> debates). Apparently Ballerium was verifiable;
at
least Eric B. and
> Rakim provided several third-party sources.
Should
the article have been
> kept? Rossami stated that the reason he was
voting
"delete" was: "Let
the product come out for release. Then let it be
for another 6 months.
If the product still has publicity and traction
after 6 months live,
then it /might/ make the cut as
encyclopedic."
Isn't that a definition
of "notability"?
Sorry for the off-topic rambling, it just struck
me how Ballerium
appeared to be a perfect case of a verifiable
topic having its article
deleted.
Wow, that's a perfect example of massive abuse of
the VfD process. I see
comments like "doesn't exist" (which it does and
did), and statements
about how beta software isn't worthy of an
article,
and they don't care
how popular it is.
I note with a combination of amusement and horror
but no surprise at all
that almost if not all parties involved in that
discussion aside from
Rick are relatively new contributors (moreso at
the
time of the
discussion). What we're seeing seems to be a
result
of the massive
influx of new users who either don't understand
Wikipedia or its
long-standing policies and principles, or don't
care.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!