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

[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: Sun 6th July 2008, 2:47pm

[guy]

It's not the removal of cruft. It's the removal of articles for ideological reasons (lists of Jews), because they want to deny that there are alternatives to Wikipedia (Wikinfo) or out of sheer spite (some of Taxwoman's articles).

One of the stranger Wikipedia rules is that articles about schools are exempt from speedy deletion; WP:CSD says "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Why?

[prospero]

It's not the removal of cruft. It's the removal of articles for ideological reasons (lists of Jews), because they want to deny that there are alternatives to Wikipedia (Wikinfo) or out of sheer spite (some of Taxwoman's articles).

One of the stranger Wikipedia rules is that articles about schools are exempt from speedy deletion; WP:CSD says "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Why?

I think CSD has been subject to much instruction creep. There's always something that somebody doesn't like, so they then edit war CSD until everyone else gets tired and gives up. Quite remarkable, actually.

[dancercotillion]

However, unfortunately wikipedians tend to like a source to be something they or the reader can check themselves online.

This is a vast understatement. There are editors who will revert you for violating WP:RS if you use print-only sources, the idea being that, if you can't check it online RIGHT THEN AND THERE, print is unreliable. I've seen it happen, and it always boggles my mind. Hell, I've seen it happen on articles about novels, when people use the text of the book in question to source a statement, and they're reverted simply because "How do we know that's what the book says? It's not published online, so you could be making this up."

[prospero]

Another angry deletionist is trying to get Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles in trouble at AN. You know, I've found this chap to be quite friendly and I see no reason why his passionate inclusionism should be denounced as disruption. I wish we had a few more like him.

This post has been edited by prospero: Mon 7th July 2008, 3:14pm