User talk:Emijrp/Deletionism/2009

I stumbled upon this when conducting a search for my contribution to something unrelated. This page and its progeny for 2010 and 2011 are filled with false correlation, implicit misunderstanding of the speedy deletion process and the basis it targets, and presents a flawed logical argument. The idea is that because a topic might be notable—a proper article on the topic could be (and was) eventually created—that implies or is evidence that a prior speedy deletion of it (here as to A7, but it could be any) was hasty/poor/improper/flawed. The problems with the logic are manifold. First, speedy deletion is necessary for us to function and the process and criteria is uses draw lines in the sand as to the content, not the topic, to ground the deletion. The fact a page was started with content that does not meet our policies says nothing about whether a proper article could be created and it's not our job to take each topic creation as sacrosanct and therefore analyze and rewrite it where it fails to state the most basic facts that would indicate the topic might ultimately be notable if properly researched and written, or remove a copyright violation and start an article from scratch; or add content where it was empty, and so on. In short, if an article says nothing more than "Albert Einstein is a scientist.", it can and should be deleted under the A7 doorkeeper function, and it is not relevant that Einstein is actually a notable topic. Not only does this logic scheme fail for these reasons, but the list is additionally tainted by including things like: topics that were recreated, not thereupon deleted, and are actually on non-notable topics that just haven't been taken to Afd; persons and things that were actually non-notable at the time of creation but later gained fame; and articles on one topic that, when the title was recreated and remained, were about completely unrelated topics by the same names.

To give a few concrete examples for some list items: the topic of Sophie Bevan is certainly notable, but the content of the prior page that was deleted (and is flagged here by the logic of this list as having been a bad deletion), had this content: SOPHIEEEE BEVANNNN!

I LOVE YOU!!!! :D

Mannyy xx Heather Neff had no content other than some (copyright violating) résumé bullet lists of where she went to school, what courses she took and where she provided training. Had that content remained we would have hidden the red link to invite a real article by someone willing and able to write something worthwhile for the topic. And then there's items like ADONIS, which is a redirect to a type of telescope when the article was about some non-notable rapper; Mats Nilsson was on an entirely different person by the same name when it was deleted (and said nothing of any significance), and Roy Collins, one of my deletions listed here is the same – the current article is about an English cricketer, where the items I deleted was a vanity piece by a fifteen year old.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)