On 9/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should >be replaced by something with far less discretion.
You can replace it with whatever you like won't have any effect on admin actions they will just find some other rational. CSD is for the most part descriptive rather than prescriptive.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles >speedied if they are without redeeming interest.
"interest" is not a deletion or keeping criteria.
A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken
idea) and its >"assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
For the most part it can. Sure you get a few errors but given the numbers involved there will always be an issue with that.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise >"run-of-the-mill" ?
Really doesn't matter. Admins will continue to delete that class of articles whatever you call it.
-- geni
I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice if new article patrollers understood the point, though.
I'm sure every admin can hash up examples of such articles - I've rejected three articles on Jamaican Federal Elections, one on a Haitian Presidental Election and one on the Cuisine of San Marino in the last two weeks or so, of the top of my head. Who's going through articles thinking "Haitian Presidential Election? Doesn't sound notable or encyclopaedic ... " ?
WilyD