User:Centauri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Resident of Sydney, Australia.

Have been contributing to Wikipedia for several years.

My Wiki-interests include (in no particular order) cinema, anime, the paranormal, pseudoscience and micronations.

In wider life I enjoy writing, talking, listening, creating, supporting the underdog.

Thoughts concerning article deletion[edit]

Some time ago I was a frequent participant in VfD and AfD discussions.

Many of the justifications for deleting perfectly good, notable, interesting articles or article stubs I found to be, frankly, disturbing in the breadth of their ignorance, lack of consideration, and absence of respect for the time and effort expended in their creation by well-intentioned contributors.

My views on the deletion vs inclusion debate are best summarized by the comment below, which I posted in one such deletion vote discussion:

You are indeed correct. The real problem here is a failure to remember what, exactly, an encyclopedia is. Encyclopedias were conceived and intended as organized compendia of ALL knowledge - not just "select" knowledge or so-called "notable" knowledge (whatever that is supposed to mean). Nothing has changed in the past several thousand years, other than the technological capacity to make real the actual intention of the early encyclopedists. Those who promote the notion that "some knowledge is more important than other knowledge" would do well to remember that "importance" is a largely subjective matter (as the above Star Wars vs Kaiser Wilhelm II example shows), and that it is right and proper that an evolving project such as Wikipedia reflect the concerns, interests and obsessions of those who create it and the times in which they live, rather than presenting itself as the informational equivalent of a constipated Victorian maiden aunt.

So what articles should be deleted from Wikipedia ? In my opinion the following are the only legitimate deletion targets:

Complete nonsense: If it makes no sense and/or has no context, it more than likely doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

Original research - although crackpot theories are often notable when discussed in context.

Vanity - but only insofar as it amounts to outright self-promotion/advertising. Resumes are vanity. Articles written by the members of garage bands who have never performed in public or released a published recording are vanity. Articles by pupils or teachers about schools they attend are not vanity.