Talk:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists
- This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists article. This is also a forum for general discussion about the article's subject; so if you wish to comment on the latter, go ahead.
- Please add new topics to the bottom of this page
- 1 Name Length
- 2 Can I join?
- 3 Election needed?
- 4 Examples of Bad Articles That Don't Belong in Wikipedia
- 5 The initialism is missing a letter
- 6 Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process
- 7 how
- 8 It seems another election is in order...
- 9 Moved from content page
- 10 Great Message
The name of this page is far too long. Why not shorten it? -- 18.104.22.168 18:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I like the name really, but it wreaks havoc with my specific customized Modern stylesheet – that I must now temporarily disable in order to be able to edit here – so I prefer the page to be moved to AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, and the name Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists to be a redirect. rursus 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I join?
Hello. I would like to join the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. I don't have a user page on this website, but I dohave one on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vuerqex). Vuerqex 14:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"An election for General Secretary was closed on 5 Dec 2005. The result was Everyone shall remain Secretary. This position will last for five years." We are in severe danger of falling into a constitutional crisis if we don't organise another election before 10 days are up... Fences and windows 02:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I nominate myself to fill the all-important position of Secretary of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. I think that I have the necessary skills to carry out all of the many jobs that I would need to perform. Hi878 03:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I nominate Everyone for another term. If there is anyone who is skilled at keeping track of the many demands of making individual decisions, it is Everyone, and I think Everyone has done a fine job so far. If anyone can do it, Everyone can, and Everyone should have the chance to serve the Association in whichever manner Everyone comes to after thoughtful decision. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- For the upcoming five year term, I nominate No One. No One could do a better job of advancing the association's goals than Everyone has done. While No One thanks Everyone for their service to the association over the past five years, No One is much better suited to the job than Everyone. Everyone should work to make this a smooth transitions, as it should be clear that No One can succeed unless Everyone works together. Cander0000 23:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- But if No One takes over, Everyone will no doubt be forced into submission, which would make No One extremely happy, but would make Everyone rather upset. If Everyone stayed in office, No One would be upset, but Everyone would be overjoyed. Who do we really want to please? No One, or Everyone? Hi878 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who is not a member of the august brother- and sisterhood of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists, I nominate Some One, as Some One will always do a better job than No One, and yet will act more efficiently than Every One. Of course, Any One can be that Some One, although Every One cannot, and certainly No One can Be Some One. -- Avi 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- However, I have just recieved word that No One supports Some One. If No One supports Some One, do we really want Some One in office? We have already established that No One is not sufficient, and No One supports Some One, which is also bad, so what choice do we have but to elect Every One? No One would be happy if Some One or No One won, yet Every One would be happy if Every One won. Hi878 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Examples of Bad Articles That Don't Belong in Wikipedia
I stumbled apon your association and am intrigued by your cause. Could you give us some examples of Bad articles and explain what justifies deleting them? Some examples could explain your association better.
The initialism is missing a letter
The word "Are" is capitalized and included in the initialism for "Who Are in Favor" (WAF), but it is missing in "That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists" (TDMTD). The initialism should really be "AWWDMBJAWGCAWAFDSPBATDMTAD". : ) – Keraunoscopia 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process
There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.
Please place responses regarding this matter here on this "AWWDMBJAWGCAWAFDSPBATDMTAD" Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 06:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the proper venue for this would be WT:AFD. Then, you would actually be commenting where people involved in the process would see what you are saying. Not many people watch this talk page. Hi878 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Note: There's also a discussion currently occurring regarding this topic at: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion - Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Northamerica1000 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
How can I join!? --22.214.171.124 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems another election is in order...
Our treasurer's term seems to be about to expire, in case anyone cares to begin campaigning wildly. Hi878 05:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ten days left... I think we are going to have major problems if a new treasurer isn't elected. Hi878 03:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I can be trusted with all of this money that we have. Hi878 00:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems we have a problem... An emergency election is in order, I believe. Hi878 04:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Greeves' term has expired, so we need to find a treasurer to manage our ¤0. Seeing as we have no money, I nominate No One. I am disappointed that he received 0% of the vote in the presidential election, but clearly that made Every One happy. Perhaps this is the right position for No One because Every One is president, so he won't get upset about No One being treasurer. Anyway, is No One currently the interim treasurer, or is Greeves a lame duck? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Moved from content page
- gwickwire is the Treasurer, due to the facts presented below:
- If Bzweebl was a good treasurer, we would have more than ¤0.
- If we had more than ¤0, then he was a bad treasurer as we now have ¤0
- We have ¤0.
- Ergo, Bzweebl was a bad treasurer, so I am taking over his position.
- Gwickwire (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- No you're not, read the talk page. ElektrikShoos admitted to stealing all the money. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This article retells Bible passages, that is amazing! Keep up with the Christian stuff. The long name is appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)