[WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

Sun Dec 11 12:56:04 UTC 2005

On 12/10/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> G'day Anthony,
>
> > On 12/9/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>>Yes, you've confused what I've said.  I think we should add more
> >>>*objective* criteria to the speedy deletion candidates, not
> >>>*subjective* ones.
> >>
> >>If totaly objective criteria don't turn up much outside maths
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with objective
> > criteria for articles that everyone agrees should be deleted.
> > Verifiability, for instance, is an objective criterion.
>
> Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an encyclopaedic
> article.  But not everyone agrees on that (IIRC, you yourself have gone
> to great --- perhaps even "extreme" --- lengths to show your disagreement).
>
Well, articles should be on nouns (more specifically, articles should
be about the thing which the noun describes).  Otherwise you're
talking about a dictionary definition.  But other than that, yeah,
verifiability is pretty much all you need to at least have a redirect
(whether or not we should be redirecting things like [[beautiful]] to
[[beauty]] is a separate question the answer to which is probably
"sometimes", but I don't suggest getting rid of redirects for
deletion).

Anyway, I was specifically talking about "articles that everyone
agrees should be deleted".  "MGM" asked "You haven't addressed my
questions on how to deal with crap everyone agrees should be deleted,
but is not actually speediable (like obvious band vanity, blatant
adverts and the like)."  My response was to "make [them] speediable".