On 11/4/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)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).
--
geni