On 11/4/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Except that keeps are frequently being overturned to deletes (Or simply overturned unilaterally and then upheld on DRV). There remains the fundamental imbalance that articles can be AfDed three, four, five, etc times, but that undeletion is a one-shot deal. This problem, while not the whole of the problem with our deletion system, underscores the bulk of the flaws.
Ever read [[WP:CSD#G4]]?
Any re-creation that isn't heavily based on a previous version can't be speedied.
Though I should note, popularity is hardly the only concern of an encyclopedia, hence the coverage of academic topics in more detail than their popularity would imply. I should think it is not an excessively insane view to point out that in terms of "value to the world" (Which is really what we mean by notability, let's face it) pornographic actors rank far, far below many areas we are far more selective about. Even a Pokemon is more exceptional than someone who's claim to fame is mostly that they have had sex.
Pokemon is setting the bar rather high. Other than perhaps playboy I doubt there is much in the field of porn better know than pokemon.
You have ignored my second point. People write about porn. It is after all where the word comes from.
A great guideline, so long as you're willing to ignore all but the most pathological of articles. Unfortunately, that's a bad way to approach the topic.
Not really. You just follow the standard aproach that they only need to be produced when their existance is challanged
Unlikely - with several hundred admins, it could well be a very long time before problems promoting new ones move to the realm of explosion.
-Phil
There were rather fewer when people started complaining. Things change adminship is a bigger deal than it used to be (so is editorship for that matter).