Wikipedia talk:Don't be an ostrich

project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This essay has been re-located from a location that was up for deletion (

]

AfDs

From the context in which you cited this in a deletion discussion just now, I wonder whether it might be useful to add a suggestion that people revisit AfDs in which they have participated to see whether new evidence has been found that might persuade them to change their vote? Failing to do that (or insisting on sticking by one's original vote even when it becomes untenable) is, after all, the most ostrich-like behaviour. — Haeleth Talk 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. I keep AfDs I vote in on my watchlist. Any suggestion on how to phrase this for the article? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is better than the previous essay. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nominated for deletion, but the outcome of the discussion was to keep it. (Radiant) 08:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decent essay, but should it have this title given that ostriches don't really bury their heads in sand? Alzarian16 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Don't be an ostrich Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think that a 100 kilogram ostrich nearly 3 meters tall which can run at 70 km/h will hide it's head in the sand in the face of danger, instead of fleeing or charging? Think again. benzband (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is horribly prejudiced against ostriches.

Okay, not really.

]

I Love Ostrich

Does that quote needed for this essay?

]