On Nov 3, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:35:26 -0500, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[[WP:DRV]]. Allegedly set up to hear procedural
cases, it has become
a court of appeal whereby procedure is considered sporadically, and
more often, where decisions that are unpopular among the main clique
that watches DRV get overturned with no further chance of appeal.
Rarely. Few are overturned and deleted, I think slightly more are
overturned and undeleted, but in most cases it seems to me to be
people bitching about deletion of fundamentally unverifiable articles.
I can usually find one absolutely god-awful deletion a day on it that
is getting inadequate consideration for reasons that have nothing to
do with any useful definition of verifiability. Today's is [[Girly]],
which I just went ahead and undeleted on the grounds that there was
no point in sitting through a charade on DRV.
Again, I think this is nonsense. Most of them seem to
be written by
the people who want the crud *included*, which is why we have such a
farcically low bar to porn "stars".
It tends to be, specifically, an uneasy and crappy consensus of the
people who want to delete all of them and the people who want to
include all of them, with an understandably but unfortunately low
amount of input from the people who really don't care very much about
porn stars. As a result every notability guideline tends to be a
roughly halfway point between delete all/include all such that there
is no consistency across topics.
> What, people's refusal to find decent
sources? Sure is.
That and a complete lack of understanding of what a decent source is.
The latter is increasingly more prevalent than the former - citation
of something to a mediocre source, particularly when nobody seriously
doubts the accuracy of the information, is a far more preferable
outcome than deletion of things that are sourced to completely
reliable sources that fail to meet some editor's desire for a test
that can be operated by a robot.
-Phil