User talk:Revived/Phonebooking

I moved this from my talk page, just so it doesn't clutter up the page.

Continuing from "*Let's say "non-notable" for instance. Delete.  --fvw *  03:52, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)" on the VfD, cut there and pasted here to save VfD space:


 * While that may be your opinion, that is not a valid reason to delete an entry according to the Deletion Policy. Only the following are listed as valid reasons:
 * Original research
 * Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases.
 * Vanity page
 * Advert or other spam
 * No potential to become encyclopedic
 * Completely idiosyncratic non-topic
 * If you'll let me know which one you would classify this as, I can respond more thoroughly. -- Revived 04:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Deletion policy is not, nor does it claim to be, a complete list of all reasons for deletion.  --fvw *  04:03, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 * As a new user to Wikipedia, I can only go by what I read. It says, "You can expect administrators (or sysops) to follow the process detailed [in the policy] to aid them in their judgment."  That leads me to believe that this policy will be applied when considering whether a page will be deleted.  I expect you, as a sysop, to use the policy to aid you in your judgement.  Marking an item for deletion within minutes, not based on a reason in policy, does not seem like a good way to encourage new users to Wikipedia. -- Revived 04:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The policy is, "if it gets consensus on VfD that it should be deleted, it will be". Sysops follow that policy. (I not a sysop by the way). Quoting from What wikipedia is not (a good read, I can recommend it):
 * Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic. It is by no means an all-inclusive list. The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia.
 * If you are discouraged by this turn of events, that is understandable and regrettable, and I hope it won't deter you from editing here. However, our primary goal is to make a good encyclopaedia.  --fvw *  04:29, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but what I see here is a difference between policy and practice. If articles like this don't belong, that's fine, but the deletion policy should reflect that.  As of now, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, it does not. -- Revived 04:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia is not is also policy (and very central to the encyclopedia as such). It doesn't need to be restated on every other related policy page. Also, if this discussion of policy gets much longer, it will disproportionately clog up Votes for deletion, where all current vfds are shown together on a page. Can we move some of this to User_talk: pages? Samaritan 04:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My talk page is about as good a place as any. -- Revived 05:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One additional note. "Notability" is a frequently used criteria in VfD discussions.  It is most often used as a proxy for several other criteria taken together.  Topics which are extremely small, new or poorly known are unlikely to gather the critical mass of reader/editors necessary to keep the article verifiable and NPOV.  In particular, there must be enough knowledgable editors with an interest in the topic who will keep the article watchlisted in order to protect if from subtle vandalism.
 * Despite not being articulated in the Deletion Policy, this is a pretty widely held standard. Several people have suggested that we update the Deletion Policy to reflect the current community consensus.  No one has yet offered wording that we can all agree on, though.  Rossami (talk) 01:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)