On 2/11/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/11/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Mistakes happen via AFD all the time; results should not be immutable; and the system is very far from perfect. That said, it is better than a random process
I agree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should do deletion randomly.
There is no good reason to treat deletion differently than any other edit.
Any process which involves dozens of people over the course of a week should naturally be treated differently, and reversed more slowly, than a single edit by a single user. This applies equally to AfD results and to FPC/FAC selections.
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I mean that deletion itself should be done like any other edit, and not through any process like AFD. Since this PROD deletion system is closer to the simplicity that I consider ideal, I endorse it. But I think it could be improved even further.
There's definitely room for a wiki-style 'deletion'; this would not match many of the current uses of what we call deletion. Perhaps we could use a "make invisible" button that lets anyone make an article 'invisible' -- * Not cached or spidered by web-bots * Only showing up in WP searches if the user explicitly asks to match invisible items * When you go to the page, in place of the standard "there is no article with this title" text, show a "There was an article under this title which was removed by <user> on <date> (''<reason>'') [link to invisible text]." * Invisibility is likewise reversible.
This would not be a substitute for deletion in all cases. SJ