3 ms·

If the issue is with maintenance and proper curation of content then that is what should be discussed. I'd far prefer in the case that an article is not well m

by Smerity 16y ago

If the issue is with maintenance and proper curation of content then that is what should be discussed. I'd far prefer in the case that an article is not well maintained that it be flagged for deletion in X months due to absence of proper care. If there is a strong community presence the article can be resurrected and recovered and Wikipedia ultimately improved and only otherwise the article deleted. I've seen deletionism creep into articles that were very well written, very well cited and overall a great source of information. I hope you are either generalizing or I'm misunderstanding your point as otherwise this does anything but justify deletionism.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>I've seen deletionism creep into articles that were very well written, very well cited and overall a great source of information. These characteristics are not the measure used for inclusion. Which is absolutely right IMO - one could create a well written article, well cited and be the best source on what hair products some actor uses but it wouldn't make that information more notable. I think that maintaining as high a quality as possible is important for Wikipedia. Like someone said, making Wikipedia a mirror of the web is not beneficial. Someone here could probably do all right by making a mirror of all pages being deleted though¹. --- ¹ all ready done it seems http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page.
tokenadult 16y ago
I've seen deletionism creep into articles that were very well written, very well cited and overall a great source of information. I'd like you to let us know what specific examples you have seen, if you would please.