On 5/5/06, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The more decentralized, the less people involved, the
more easy it is
to form consensuses. So if there is a consensus among the group of
Wikipedians working on Star Trek articles that "Tribble Rebellion of
2280" should be kept, then that is what should be done. I think it is
perfectly clear that those who work in the topic area knows best what
articles belong in it.
Following this principle, probably all content on Memory Alpha, a Star
Trek wiki edited by Star Trek experts, would be acceptable on
Wikipedia. This is, however, currently not the case. For instance,
Memory Alpha has individual articles about Star Trek DVDs which would
probably be merged or deleted on WP.
My belief is simply that Star Trek experts are often Star Trek fans,
and Star Trek fans will not like to delete content that is verifiable
and sourced only because it is not "notable" enough. Essentially, the
criterion of notability strikes me as difficult to sustain under such
conditions -- _unless_, instead of talking about Star Trek experts,
we're talking about television experts, or entertainment experts. Then
you have more diversity (and a certain healthy amount of animosity).
Splitting AfD into _broad_ topical categories might be a viable
approach to achieve consensus more frequently without significantly
altering the balance of inclusion vs. deletion. Then again, if we
could do Boolean category intersections, we could simply offer
diferent views on AfD. I think there's a toolserver tool for that
already, isn't there?
No matter how we organize, I am of course opposed to excluding people
from any AfD page because they are not "experts". Any reorganization
should merely be aimed at improving the "social flow".
Erik