On 05/05/06, Sigvat Stensholt <sigvats(a)mi.uib.no> wrote:
a) Most people will abandon "nn, delete"
reasoning and seriously consider good
arguments for inclusion if someone throws a strong argument into the debate.
What if the keep argument is made at the end of the voting period?
It's obviously the great weakness of AfD that discussion and voting
happens simultaneously - votes can take place in ignorance of
intelligent arguments subsequently made.
b) We have a number of inclusionists on AFD who more
or less reject the notion
of notability anyway and will vote to keep articles on all roads, streets,
schools and churches.
I think it would be in the project's interest if we could define a set
of exceptions to "notability" on the basis that comprehensiveness in
certain areas is more valuable. Most people would probably agree that
every university in the world should have an article. However by
definition, once you include "every" anything, you include "non
In other words, I don't think every subject should have to be notable,
if it has another reason for being included.
c) Most people are loathe to delete well-written
articles, even if the
notability is dubious.
That's a major problem. Perhaps if we change the emphasis from
"deleting it", with its connotations of purging it from the surface of
the earth, to "moving it out of Wikipedia"?