On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, I agree with Keith here. We need some centralized discussion. Not only is does it take a lot less time for admins to manage one central place and delete what needs to be deleted, it's also easier to refer people to that place.
Also without AFD, there's still too many articles that can't get speedied because of a technicality. "More than one person bvut still vanity" and "advertising" come to mind. They're deleted 99% (figure of speech) of the time and AFD research shows those are the kind of deletions often uncontested.
How are we going to get rid of non-speediable crap without AFD? How is everyone going to have input (the wiki way)?
Turning off AFD even for one day will cause too much of a mess. Sure, we can clean it up eventually, but why open your bag of trash indoors when the garbage man is waiting outside?
Why not spend the day organizing the mess that's already there? The biggest problem with AFD is that the same questions get asked over and over and over again.
Anyway, I don't understand how turning AFD off for one day would cause a mess. It'd just double the number of nominations the next day. Considering the growth rate, that's going to happen sooner or later anyway. Might as well get a feel for how it's going to work.
No matter what method you use, deletion is always going to have some ill-will with it. It's something that can't be avoided until we all reach common ground, and stop taking deletions personal.
How do we reach common ground? Certainly not by just keeping things the way they are now. You could probably eliminate 99% of the ill-will surrounding deletion by simply giving people access to the content that was deleted.
As Keith said, you can use AFD without any ill-feelings by simply bringing forth good arguments.
Mgm