Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ComCat

ComCat should dedicate himself to do more creative things here, such as writing articles instead of putting the entire encyclopedia into deletion votes. Antonio the 5,000th Editor Martin
 * While I do agree that ComCat has done appropriate VFD's, I just think he/she needs to slow down a bit, perhaps do a bit a research, then perform the VFD. If he or she does that, perhaps we would not even be here. I am not intending this to go to full-blown RFAr, I want this RFC to help him or her in their Wiki-perience. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's my purpose in calling the RFC; User:ComCat's editting history consists almost entirely of rapid slews of VfDs (minutes apart, so very, very little attempt at research is done), of which a high fraction are questionable.  More importantly, his talk page has several complaints about this, without a single response either on his talk page, or even on other pages (reviewing his edit history).  Wikipedia should encourage bold edits, but this isn't bold editing.  Wikipedia should encourage contributions (including VfDs to cull obvious junk), but many of his are more destructive than constructive.  And finally, Wikipedia has a deletion policy, which isn't being followed here.  Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not acceptable, and neither is tying up a lot of effort on VfD's which have anonymous agreement by dozens of users that they should be kept.  I'd like to keep ComCat around, but he should (a) be more restrained, and (b) respond to questions raised on his own talk page.  Just IMHO. -- Kaszeta 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Another burst
It seems that, despite the urging of many (with which I concur) that ComCat should perhaps tone these somewat arbitrary VfDs down, another such burst has occurred. It looks like they're happening roughly twice a month, beginning again one month after this discussion started. --BenM 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

NN, D.
I found this page after going to ComCat's talk page to politely suggest that "NN, D." is not an appropriate way to justify recommending the deletion of pages that other contributors have invested their time and effort in. ComCat's talk page indicates that many such polite suggestions have already been ignored, and not even responded to, so I decided to make my point here instead of there. Snottygobble | Talk 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Point?
The continual nomination of schools (which are speedy no-consensus, every time), is a violation of WP:POINT. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I cannot really endorse this, since there is a sizable number of people who think they should be deleted, nominating them can hardly be considered disruptive, making a point in a non-disruptive manner is allowed and should be allowed. The best thing to do if you want to keep schools is to vote "keep" and argue why the article should be retained. Just agree to disagree with those who want them deleted. Personally, I think the best way to get rid of school articles for those who want to do that, is to merge them with the school district/town/village/neighborhood which does not require permission at AFD. Regarding ComCat, my issue with him is his continual "NN D" nominations without any explanation of why the subject is "NN", and often made without making even a minor check with Google or something to see if the subject is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't about schools. It's about the lack of explanation, on effort put in to nominations.  If the nominator doesn't carefully select articles, do research, and give an explanation, then we'ld get just as good results from random AFDs on new articles (yes, an exaggeration); since out of any ten new articles there's likely a couple worthy of deletion.  The nominator of an AFD should not expect others to do the work for them.  We never want to discourage somebody from being bold, but being bold, means boldly doing something, not asking others to do it for you.  --rob 15:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We should strongly discourage people from being bold in deleting articles. WP:BOLD is clear - "The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can anyone disagree that this AfD (Articles_for_deletion/McMartin_preschool) is a case in point of WP:POINT? They obviously did not read the article at all, but simply cut-n-pasted into AfD with the usual NN,D. Turnstep 03:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)