Sjakkalle Don't worry about labels. The reality is just that there's a backlog of articles at AfD which need someone to argue for their keeping, but not for their deleting. I've been labelled an "exteme inclusionist" or an "inclusionist troll" because I almost always argue Keep at AfD. But why do I do this? If I see an AfD that should be a "delete", there are better things to do with my time than articulate the "delete" arguement - someone else will get that. Keeping is different.
Cheers Brian On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen > Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental > Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long > time contributors voting to delete it. > > Here is a fact: Ellen Hambro is covered in a paper encyclopedia, "Store > norske leksikon", which is the largest, and most well-known of all > contemporary general-purpose Norwegian encyclopedias written on 15 > volumes of paper. > > And yet I see people rejecting this encyclopedia as "not intellectually > independent" and "crypto-official". > > I would not be writing this list if this were a one-off occurrence, but > this is the third time in only a few weeks that I have seen encyclopedia > subjects (and this means: has a separate article in a general-purpose > paper encyclopedia) nominated for deletion. The other two are the > articles [[Glamour (presentation)]] and [[Star Shipping]], the latter > which was nominated for *speedy* deletion, and had that speedy tag stuck > on it for several hours. > > There comes a point when we need to do a reality check. The reality is > that we are in danger of deleting a subject which a commercial > general-purpose print encyclopedia has deemed notable enough to be > within their limited pages. Deleting any of these articles will be an > action more profound than deleting Mzoli's, Terry Shannon, or Pownce > would ever be. > > I fear that the zeal to delete articles in the name of enforcing > policies and the notability guidelines are starting to encroach upon the > fundamentals Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia. We cannot > possibly claim to be comprehensive if we start deleting subjects covered > in the very works we want to surpass. I really don't consider myself an > "inclusionist", but is it really all that "inclusionist" to support > keeping subjects traditionally covered by encyclopedias? > > Sjakkalle > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
