Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Fonseca Rendeiro]]
A model AfD, except for the word "vanity" which was unnecessary and
irrelevant (though, as it turned out, true).
If you are unhappy with the way this article was deleted, David, maybe you
could tell us how you would have preferred it to be deleted? I'm asking in
good faith. How would you have expressed a delete opinion on that page if
you had done so? And, if AfD were replaced with some other system of your
choosing, how would you have handled this article in that system? Or do
you think that deleting this article under any system does more harm than
good?
Anyone who's been on this mailing list for 15 seconds knows you don't like
AFD but I'm still not quite sure what you want to replace it with. You've
suggested disbanding it altogether with the argument that it only deletes
some 200 articles a day anyway. But disbanding it and replacing it with
nothing would greatly increase the influx of new marginal articles. People
who've previously been turned off by having their stuff deleted would be
"back in business". The place would start filling up with articles on
non-notable people, dolls, webcomics etc. ;)
But I know you're not actually a super-inclusionist. Just a couple of days
ago you said on [[WT:AFD]]:
"Note: my personal opinion is that almost everything nominated on AFD does
in fact deserve as quick, messy and painful a death as can be managed."
I'm not sure what to make of that. What system do you envision to achieve
the following two aims?
a) Solve the PR problems currently generated by AFD.
b) Deal a quick, messy and painful death to almost everything currently
handled by AFD.
But I'm probably misinterpreting, considering the opinions you've
expressed elsewhere - like cautioning against haste in deletion - you were
probably being ironic. Presumably what you want to do is:
b) Deal a slow, clean and painless death to almost everything currently
handled by AFD.
Regards,
Haukur
As I've been saying, I believe if we get more individual attention to
the 1% of all debates that stir up these problems, we can effectively
resolve this without cannibalising the existing system. The problem is
that due to our consensus decision-making process, major deletion
process reform cannot move forward (this was already true 1.5 years ago
with [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]], which would probably have
effectively tackled a lot of obvious "nn bio" articles). Tinkering
around the edges only works for so long -- CSD can't be expanded forever.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])