User:Valters

I monitor some pages about Latvia, but I haven't written any articles.

I have a BSc in Computer Science from Riga Technical University, and I completed a Masters degree in Economics (more like MBA actually) in University of Latvia in year 2005.

Inclusionism Deletionism

The Outrage Which Shall Not, Yeah Whatever
Valters 09:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am outraged at this Notability policy, where articles are being destroyed just because someone thinks they are "not important", "not interesting", "not encyclopedic", "unremarkable".

Here's some quotes from people deleting articles:
 * "Useful" has never been really a valid criteria for keeping, though it may contribute, many things in wp:not are useful as well... User:Wintermut3
 * "Please provide some evidence of this notability"
 * Burden of proof is on articles author to defend himself from the judging of Wikipedia Editor.
 * Delete unless fleshed out very quickly. Clock is ticking. Hu 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) AfD
 * This was about article about Amy Loftus which only was created 2006-12-05T00:45:08, basically User:Thue marked it non-notable 10 minutes after it was created and User:Morven nominated it for deletion mere hour after (even though subject is notable (if you are a teen and from Britain, then moreso - probably), and many articles start with a small stub, and then grow). There is something very wrong about this deletion policy.
 * Other than the label's own site, I don't see any refs or sources.
 * This about some 150+ years old privately held french company - of course there are no refs on web, if you don't search in French! Somewhat similar to one dude trying to google a pre-internet, yiddish poet and concluded he is non-notable since there were not a wealth of results. Well duh!
 * They don't seem to take Wikipedia very seriously.
 * Editor nominates article for deletion because he does not like the original article writer's attitude.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; Just because something is "information" doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. Basically, we can set limits to what kinds of information we include. We also set the bar; demonstrated lack of notability is a reason to delete an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC) AfD
 * Basically "Because I said so". There is no technical limitation why information should not be included, there is no inherent moral obligation to only keep notable or interesting articles. If somebody is willing to maintain and write an article, why not let him? Does Wikipedia lose face if it is determined that certain percentage of it's articles are bunk? Well, somebody wrote them, and it's the users of Wikipedia who wrote them. Deleting the articles is betrayal of the Wikipedia users.
 * Delete Thou hath not shown thine notability. -WarthogDemon 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) AfD
 * Today, Ezekiel 25:17 would be deleted. "they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them" -- sounds familiar? Nah, not notable.
 * Even if this band were notable, which you've done nothing to convince anyone of, the article is not written in a form suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, either in terms of the selection of content, the tone, or even the basic formatting which every other article has. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) AfD
 * Somebody else putting down a person who only joined Wikipedia as editor few hours ago, finding a notable subject to write an article about. What a welcome. Articles must be allowed to evolve by collaborative effort. Finally I ask - is Wikipedia better off if it does not have an article, or if it has one, even if poorly formatted? Is there something about Wikipedia target audience that I don't know about?
 * I see no problem with you going through the list of LotR character articles and nominating the unsourced (or improperly sourced) and unverifiable articles on non-notable characters of interest only to LotR fans for deletion. If your nomination is well-argued, I will support it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) AfD
 * Those deletionists. There's nothing this editor loves more than the smell of deleting a nice, good article (in the morning).
 * Delete, per nom, and because that level of POV biased cruft fiction writing should be eliminated from any wiki anywhere. Ever. ThuranX 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) AfD
 * Delete The topic has the possibility of being notable, but the article in its current form does not have any value. TSO1D 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC) AfD
 * The article is about chemical compound, and is kept.
 * Delete per nom at WP:CHURCH; I am quite comfortable with both following the guidelines to the letter and in washing out all those articles on non-notable churches. May we turn the gunsights onto elementary schools next. RGTraynor 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) AfD

In some instances, deletion of articles amounts to destroying information, not preserving or cataloguing it! For example, Slashdot subculture article - yes, it's orginal research, yes, it is not quite notable, yes it's poorly written, but it's interesting damnit! And the only place where this information is collected is Wikipedia.

When article is deleted, this information vanishes. And that is a loss. Well technically the article may be still available on answers.com. (I wonder if they replicate Wikipedia deletes as well.)

I think, when an article is deleted, it discourages it's authors to contribute. People feel rejected, and are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia in future (or more inclined to vandalize or just stop giving a shit).

I am now writing an essay on this phenomenon. User:Valters/Notability_Disability