On 7/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/07, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
We've renamed VfD this once, to get rid of the 'votes', since it shouldn't be about votes. Perhaps it is time to get rid of the D, since it isn't really about deletion -- which involves an initial assumption of bad faith -- but about review: what is the author thinking? If the author is really trying to convey useful information about an encyclopedic and notable subject (good faith), how can we help them improve their work / extract better information from them / guide them to reasonable style guidelines? "Articles for Deletion" could be something related, very specific, and altogether different.
I recall Kelly Martin was once pushing this heavily, and a number of people (including, *cough*, yours truly) have pointed out these problems in the past. We really need to move beyond the blowing hot air stage and, you know, try to push this through consensually. Assuming we can get a consensus on this at all.
Link? I remember a red haze of conflict, but not a specific suggestion; if there's one in place, perhaps we can just modify it a bit to make it a matter of separation and not confrontation (there is still room for an AfD with clearer purpose), and see how it works.
SJ