geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman
<travis(a)gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
When you have 150
AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of
obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are
uncontested junk.
"Uncontested" != "junk"
However it does mean that for five days no one who visted the article
thought it was worth keeping
At the time of this writing en has 776,230 articles. By definition, the
articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are
only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy
to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss
the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through
to its deletion over a much longer period than that.
You don't think the template namespace is has
enough rubish in it already?
Bit of a topic shift there. The template namespace is very different
from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for
that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.
If this
professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential
fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his
college. If he was more important but still not for an article of his
own then the article could have been merged.
People move around
Redirects can be changed. This is kind of a side-issue, though, specific
to this one particular article.
Why are we
going around deleting articles like this?
Becuase aprently no one cares about them.
But you're only basing that on the results of an AfD, and a major point
of this discussion is that some of us are arguing that some AfDs are not
receiving the sort of attention that they should be.
Here's another idea that just occurred to me to toss into the pot, how
about leaving AfDs open for a much longer period of time, like a month
or so? Before reacting that this would make AfD's backlog enormous, bear
in mind that it wouldn't affect the rate at which articles enter AfD and
are deleted from AfD, and thanks to each day having its own page it'd be
just as easy to handle the housekeeping. There'd just be 30 day-pages in
the queue in front of /old rather than 5. This doesn't address the issue
of unsupported votes, but it would be a step towards getting more votes
from people who read the articles as opposed to those who specialize in
reading the AfD listings.
Why are people
seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody
need even give a reason any more? That's utterly bonkers.
Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}}
(argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't
do any good.
I really don't see any difference between a vote that's explained with a
useless "nn" and a vote that's explained with {{nn}} which expands into
a paragraph-long genereric dissertation on the subject of notability.
Typing those curley brackets doesn't require any extra thought and
provides no extra information.