4 ms·

I'm sure these policies are designed to keep up quality. Deletion is a great incentive for improving articles. Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to

by acg 17y ago

I'm sure these policies are designed to keep up quality. Deletion is a great incentive for improving articles. Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to fix the article at the moment there is little content. If you care, fix it :-).

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
yellowbkpk 17y ago
It's not being deleted due to lack of content. The main argument for deletion seems to be the lack of external non-primary sources.
noarchy 17y ago
Deletion isn't about improving articles. It is about removing them. If an article covers an obscure topic or person, what of it, so long as the article is properly referenced? There are many topics out there that are definitely arcane and of little interest to most people. Does this mean that Wikipedia ought to be a knowledge base for nothing but pop culture? I sure hope not.
- acg 17y ago
  Have you read the article? It reads like a blog entry rather than an entry to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been criticized before for not being well researched and factual. The problem with the article is it may as well be someone's opinion on the WM. I'm all for more pages but this does not read well. My point is if you care, make it read like it belongs in there. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an internet archive it's supposed to be factual.
  - noarchy 17y ago
    I am all for cleaning up bad content. But I think we have to make a distinction between a Wikipedia entry with poor structure or citations, and this notion of an "unworthy topic" As for this entry, specifically, I have read it. And I'd go back to what I mentioned about cleaning up bad content. The article can be fixed. It does not need to be eliminated.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    There are flags that can note the article is poorly written so that noone mistakes it as authoritative in its current state. Indeed in this manner people interested in the subject can be attracted to improve it.

by acg 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

yellowbkpk 17y ago

It's not being deleted due to lack of content. The main argument for deletion seems to be the lack of external non-primary sources.

noarchy 17y ago

Deletion isn't about improving articles. It is about removing them. If an article covers an obscure topic or person, what of it, so long as the article is properly referenced? There are many topics out there that are definitely arcane and of little interest to most people. Does this mean that Wikipedia ought to be a knowledge base for nothing but pop culture? I sure hope not.

acg 17y ago
Have you read the article? It reads like a blog entry rather than an entry to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been criticized before for not being well researched and factual. The problem with the article is it may as well be someone's opinion on the WM. I'm all for more pages but this does not read well. My point is if you care, make it read like it belongs in there. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an internet archive it's supposed to be factual.
- noarchy 17y ago
  I am all for cleaning up bad content. But I think we have to make a distinction between a Wikipedia entry with poor structure or citations, and this notion of an "unworthy topic" As for this entry, specifically, I have read it. And I'd go back to what I mentioned about cleaning up bad content. The article can be fixed. It does not need to be eliminated.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  There are flags that can note the article is poorly written so that noone mistakes it as authoritative in its current state. Indeed in this manner people interested in the subject can be attracted to improve it.