Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Perennial requests
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some ideas... I'd suggest the number but it's not perennial yet, more of a flavour of the month. G N A A is also a good choice. Brian P might be in the running at some point... ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are a bunch more. Looking back through the deletion review archives for ones closed as redundant would be a way of completing. I'd been thinking about creating this page, but wondered about it versus WP:BEANS and hadn't decided. GRBerry 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we not have this? Seriously, it's one thing to have perennial requests about policy issues, it's another to say that "X will never happen" in regards to content, which is entirely troubling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it was introduced "Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive - it is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion." [Emphasis in original.] I'd encourage tweaking the intro to something that made it clear that these are items we've seen before, and that results are unlikely to change absent a new article draft or a change in general standards. If we linked the following it could be helpful in determining when future reviews are likely to succeed: 1) the last complete AFD on the subject, 2) prior complete DRVs on the subject, 3) evidence snippets in DRVs that did not get a complete review. (Yes, the perrennials often have some things in group 3.) GRBerry 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Myg0t? GNAA? Corvus cornix 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two things that are likely to have articles once people stop reacting to the simply sight of the names, maybe? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doubtful. Likely to have articles once reliable sources are provided. Corvus cornix 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is the problem with pages like this - once we get around to dragging our RS guideline into the 21st century, what happens? People dismissing the appeals, "oh, it's another perennial undeletion proposal" and moving on. No thanks. In the case of myg0t, we should have an article on it by now. Same as The Game. GNAA? We won't because of our lack of modern sourcing guidelines, but once we get around to repairing that, itll be fine, too. Then what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- People can always create the article in their user space then point to it at a DRV appeal. Corvus cornix 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's make them jump through more hoops. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, let's make them get it right. Corvus cornix 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's look at The Game - we denied it because it lacks a good English source? How much righter do they need to get? GNAA's been added now - the minute we finally wake the hell up and allow blog sources, that one's back. How dumb is this page, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Game issue wasn't English sourcing. Although some people brought that up in the AfDs and DRVs, that was a small minority. I've therefore removed that claim from the matter. And no, blogs are not reliable sources in general. Although a small fraction of them are reliable for some purposes and those blogs are usable, the vast majority are not. As such, random blogs are not valid sources for articles. I should hope that we don't "wake the hell up" because that would lead to us losing our already low level of credibility with the public and unlike most of our credibility issues, this would be justified. JoshuaZ 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, they can be, and I'm confident that will be addressed sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Game issue wasn't English sourcing. Although some people brought that up in the AfDs and DRVs, that was a small minority. I've therefore removed that claim from the matter. And no, blogs are not reliable sources in general. Although a small fraction of them are reliable for some purposes and those blogs are usable, the vast majority are not. As such, random blogs are not valid sources for articles. I should hope that we don't "wake the hell up" because that would lead to us losing our already low level of credibility with the public and unlike most of our credibility issues, this would be justified. JoshuaZ 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's look at The Game - we denied it because it lacks a good English source? How much righter do they need to get? GNAA's been added now - the minute we finally wake the hell up and allow blog sources, that one's back. How dumb is this page, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, let's make them get it right. Corvus cornix 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, let's make them jump through more hoops. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- People can always create the article in their user space then point to it at a DRV appeal. Corvus cornix 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is the problem with pages like this - once we get around to dragging our RS guideline into the 21st century, what happens? People dismissing the appeals, "oh, it's another perennial undeletion proposal" and moving on. No thanks. In the case of myg0t, we should have an article on it by now. Same as The Game. GNAA? We won't because of our lack of modern sourcing guidelines, but once we get around to repairing that, itll be fine, too. Then what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doubtful. Likely to have articles once reliable sources are provided. Corvus cornix 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The chance that anyone who files one of those hardy perennials follows this link first and reconsiders is 0.0001%. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe make this a FAQ or something, some articles have those. The point probably wouldn't be to prevent perennial nominations, but to politely and accurately explain the issue to good faith editors who otherwise might just get yelled and so on for annoying DRV regulars, and not really understand what they did wrong. --W.marsh 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
