I propose CRPFDTNAC, for Continually Renamed Page for Deletion That
Never Actually Changes - it seems most accurate of all.
-Snowspinner
On Oct 23, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Timwi wrote:
VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about
voting.
Yet people still vote.
People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and
some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a
particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just
agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they
wouldn't be adding anything.
Example:
Someone nominating an article might write:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] ==
=== Arguments for deletion ===
* The article is badly written.
* The article does not establish notability.
=== Arguments against deletion ===
Someone else may come across the article and think it should stay.
They should be made to think about why they think it should stay,
example:
=== Arguments against deletion ===
* Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as
at least one book [2], which establishes her notability.
Another person might discover an argument as being fallacious. They
should move it to a new section:
== [[Dr. Norma Nated]] ==
=== Arguments for deletion ===
* The article does not establish notability.
=== Arguments against deletion ===
* Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as
at least one book [2], which establishes her notability.
=== Fallacious arguments ===
* (for) The article is badly written.
** Can be improved, thus not a criterion for deletion.
Arguments why I think this system is better:
* Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD
should
establish the community concensus.
* It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article,
nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion
and
hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such
that the valid ones remain.
* You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do
so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter-
argument).
* You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a
fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.
* AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be
deleted if
after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10
days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved
and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained
notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and
"previously
deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument,
thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on
process).
* It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in
order to
show you agree.
* It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a
nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.
Discuss. :)
Timwi
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l