On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:35:26 -0500, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@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.
All of our notability guidelines, which fit together to provide a completely ludicrous overall picture. (It's far easier to get onto Wikipedia as a pornographic actor than as a webcartoonist. Or, if you want to ) These are a mess of kludges created to sort out a momentary instance where six or seven articles of a given topic got AfDed in a short time period, leading to a guideline, usually written primarily by the people who wanted the articles deleted. We have, meanwhile, no generalizable criteria for notability, and thus no useful end in sight for these guidelines.
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".
[[WP:RFA]], which, like notability, lacks any consensus anymore on what the overall standards should be, and has thus degenerated into utter madness.
Yup.
[[WP:FA]] and to a lesser extent [[WP:GA]], which, like RFA, suffer from such a wildly disparate set of standards that the process of passing them is more a process of politics than of actual quality.
Never managed to get an article to either, mainly I think because it needs a number of interested editors who are determined to see their article in lights; not many people are interested in [[Giovanni Punto]].
[[WP:RS]] still stands, due to the lack of passage of [[WP:ATT]]. It's still as big a problem as ever.
What, people's refusal to find decent sources? Sure is.
Guy (JzG)