Deletionists and sockpuppetry, Is there a link and why? Options

[Casliber]

From time to time I participate at AfD and generally seems that the deletionists outnumber the inclusionists in most cases- I can only think of about 4 or 5 inclusionists and a rather larger number of 'the other side'. What has puzzled me, though, is the frequency that deletionists have either been confirmed using or being sockpuppets, or appeared highly suspicious. My question is, is this view only an apparent one, or is it a real association and if so, why? (i.e. why on earth sock if you outnumber the opposition anyway??)

[Casliber]

Why should it be easier to delete cruft? Who does it hurt? More importantly, who 'stumbles over' it if they are not looking for it? It amazes me how editors who appear antipathetic to material will spend hours trying to delete it.

I am generally pretty soft on notability, unless I feel an article by its very existence propagates misinformation.

What mainly irritates me about many pop culture debates is the lack of understanding of the shallowness of material on the net. For any Featured article I have written, and more an more Good articles, I need to find book or print sources to make them comprehensive, and often they increase the depth of the article by a huge margin. Thus I really hate the, no google hits= not notable chestnut. I have seen whole libraries devoted solely to pop culture material, just wish I had more in easy reach to reference things. I do try and source stuff where I can but the tide of deletion can be pretty strong at times.

[wikiwhistle]

Why should it be easier to delete cruft? Who does it hurt? More importantly, who 'stumbles over' it if they are not looking for it? It amazes me how editors who appear antipathetic to material will spend hours trying to delete it.

It looks naff, amateurish and immature. People, even just visitors to the site, can find it if they hit random page, or via google.

I am generally pretty soft on notability,

I'm not.

What mainly irritates me about many pop culture debates is the lack of understanding of the shallowness of material on the net. For any Featured article I have written, and more an more Good articles, I need to find book or print sources to make them comprehensive, and often they increase the depth of the article by a huge margin. Thus I really hate the, no google hits= not notable chestnut. I have seen whole libraries devoted solely to pop culture material, just wish I had more in easy reach to reference things. I do try and source stuff where I can but the tide of deletion can be pretty strong at times.

Have you tried searching not using a general google search, but use google news (which finds any articles in newspapers, mainly of the kind which are reliable sources) google scholar (slightly academic work on the subject) or google books (which enables you to search inside quite a lot of books in print.)?

I imagine you have if you've worked on GA's etc. Google news hits, in my experience, provide a good indicator of notability most of the time. You are right about 'proper' books really giving an article a boost, you can read a lot of extracts in google books but it might be nice to track down the whole book. However, unfortunately wikipedians tend to like a source to be something they or the reader can check themselves online.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: