BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
refused to AfD anything they didn't know anything about (who
can really say they know anything about my local garage band?), we would
be deleting a lot less crap, if less good articles. It's all a question
of trading off false positives for false negatives. I have rarely seen
It used to be that way. It was always considered better to keep a
crappy article than to delete a good one. The deletion policy used to
read "In case of doubt *don't delete*"
AFAIK it still does. It doesn't say "In case of doubt don't nominate
an ignorance-based debate that didn't end up
getting closed as a keep,
or being overturned by DRV.
So you admit the existance of ignorance-based debates on AFD? :)
Sounds like a good reason to get rid of the whole thing. The ignorance
is time-consuming, even for those who do not wish to get involved in
the ignorance debates.
Wikipedia is full of editors generally ignorant in anything other than a
few fields. Any decision involving community input would necessarily
involve a lot of ignorance. If you can find something that cuts out
community input with creating excessive elitism, or permits community
input but avoids ignorance, feel free to put forth a proposal. Until
then, I'll presume that this is the best we can do. A wiki is about
letting people make mistakes (whether by fucking up an edit or fucking
up a deletion nom), in the knowledge that others will correct them later on.