User:Onel5969

Born: New York City

Nationality: American

Thoughts
Some folks use the terms “Inclusionist” and “deletionist”. I prefer to class folks into those who think of WP as an encyclopedia and those who think of it as simply another wiki. Therefore, I use the term “encyclopediaist”. And this isn’t just about whether something is notable or not, but it goes to the very heart of WP:VERIFY. Leaving an unsourced or poorly sourced article, regardless of potential notability simply weakens the veracity of the entire project.

Often, at AfD, editors will cite the essay, WP:DINC. However, I think the more appropriate line of thinking is the concept espoused in the essay, Using deletion as cleanup, particularly the thought mentioned in the opening sentence, “the threat of deletion often results in some amount of cleanup being done to the article.” Often, I will try redirecting, draftifying, or simply tagging articles in an attempt to bring their quality up to at least the bare minimum for an encyclopedia entry. Then the only option left is to AfD it.

Another issue I have is that believe that folks who participate in AfD discussions and provide new sourcing for the articles under discussion, have a duty to place those citations appropriately in the article, not just at the AfD discussion. Probably 80% of the articles I’ve nominated for deletion which have been kept, have been improved to the point where they are actual cited articles. So the process works (most of the time).

At NPP, if I feel an article is of questionable notability, or I see very little notability, I’ll Prod it. If the prod is removed, if I felt it of questionable notability, I’ll usually leave it in the queue for another reviewer to have a whack at. If I feel strongly about its lack of notability, I’ll take it to AfD.

Another pet peeve are folks who un-prod articles without improving them. While this is sometimes warranted, as when the prodder missed a fact which satisfies an SNG, but the vast majority of time it is simply laziness on the part of the de-prodder. Along those lines are those who contribute sourcing at the AfD, but then do not add it to the article.

Also, I love the lazy folk who leave nasty messages when de-prodding, without taking the time to improve the article. Normally this is after the article has been tagged for improvement for over a month, with zero improvements being done on it. These are the folks who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather enjoy maintaining a collection of crap.

AfD is supposed to be based on !votes, not “votes”. What this means is that for a !vote to count, it needs to be based in policy, not opinion. However, frequently AfD’s are closed simply on a vote count. Especially, when a group of !voters simply claim that the sourcing is in-depth enough. There are several editors who are very active at AfD who continually do this. Unfortunately, rarely is an assessment of the sources provided (by either side of the discussion), so the closer must AGF. Another thing which happens at AfD are editors who use a bunch of primary sources to show notability, which are not supposed to count towards notability.

I also don’t have problems with either stub articles, or articles with a single source. As long as the source is good enough to pass WP:VERIFY, and as long as the article subject either pass WP:GNG or one of the SNG’s. Examples of the latter would be film articles sourced by AFI/BFI (American Film Institute/British Film Institute), as long as they don’t include info not in the source article. However, film articles sourced only by imdb would not qualify, since imdb is not a reliable source. Or city/village articles solely sourced to an official census data. Examples of the former would be varies flora/fauna species articles. Sometimes there is even a combination of the two, stubs sourced with a single source. Again, as long as they meet VERIFY and GNG/SNG, no issue with it.

Awards
{| class="toccolours collapsible collapsed" width=75% align="center" ! style="background:#F5DEB3"| Adrenaline shots Wikipedia is an interesting concept based on independent, volunteer editors, the three pillars, and of course, consensus. This has been a learning experience for me, and I would be lying if I didn't say I don't get a little surge of adrenaline every time another editor recognizes my efforts. These are some (I think all, but I could have missed a couple) of them:

NPP Award for 2018
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

  "just a sign of support"

Thank you for quality articles such as Stephen II of Hungary, Laugh and Get Rich and India Speaks, for gnomish watching over films and places in the US, for having served articles for creation substantially, for "No, I do not get paid, I simply do this because I believe in the concept. If you want to pay, make a contribution to the organization.", for combining excellence in copy-editing with, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * }