Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-02-27/Deletion report


 * Maybe I'm a numbers and charts person but I love lists like this. It catches me up on subjects generating a lot of discussions of which I was unaware. It also satisfies my curiosity to know what topics are current under dispute (not that I want to jump in, I'm just curious!). I only recently heard about this debate about sports notability and I think more editors who work outside the sports field would be interested in this discussion about notability criteria and how much influence WikiProjects should have over setting standards since that question cuts across a lot of other subjects. I'm not sure how you get a hold of this data but I hope this will become a regularly monthly feature. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they get it from a tool they made: User:JPxG/Oracle. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm the opposite of a numbers-and-charts person (applying that very differently than your original sense, admittedly) but what frustrates me about sports articles isn't so much the subjects and/or their notability: it's the content.
 * Nailing down WP:NSPORTS rules is all well and good, but no matter what they end up being, every one of the articles that meets them ends up a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK nightmare. Whether it's about some kid who plays junior high basketball, or James Harden, the article doesn't need to be edited every single time they score a basket. But that's exactly what we can expect to happen; never once with any citations to back it up. (Worse, tons of those articles are under pending-changes protection, and that just ends up wasting even more of the community's time.) FeRDNYC (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, . I also think it's safe to say that many discussions would turn out differently if the participants were drawn at random from the experienced editor base rather than from those heavily invested in the content area. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Like last time, very well written and fun to read! (Although it's also a bit depressing to think about how much editor time goes into some of these discussions...) 15 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These are quite clever. Kudos to the writer(s).--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions are a splendid spectator sport, at least as described by a spirited analyst, but no, I don't want to see a biography of any of our highest-scoring deletionists or inclusionists (Sis, boom, bah! Delete them all!) Jim.henderson (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)