On 29/09/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should
>be replaced by something with far less discretion.
You can replace it with whatever you like won't have any effect on
admin actions they will just find some other rational. CSD is for the
most part descriptive rather than prescriptive.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but
which one? We do need articles >speedied if they are without redeeming interest.
"interest" is not a deletion or keeping criteria.
A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that
notability (another broken
idea) and its >"assertion" can be properly
judged by individuals.
For the most part it can. Sure you get a few errors but given the
numbers involved there will always be an issue with that.
What is there that can be put in its place? How
can we better characterise >"run-of-the-mill" ?
Really doesn't matter. Admins will continue to delete that class of
articles whatever you call it.
--
geni
I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and
delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete
aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice
if new article patrollers understood the point, though.
I'm sure every admin can hash up examples of such articles - I've
rejected three articles on Jamaican Federal Elections, one on a
Haitian Presidental Election and one on the Cuisine of San Marino in
the last two weeks or so, of the top of my head. Who's going through
articles thinking "Haitian Presidential Election? Doesn't sound
notable or encyclopaedic ... " ?
WilyD