On Oct 3, 2005, at 12:20 PM, grm_wnr wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
So really, most of these
"non-notability" issues shouldn't ever be
brought to VfD in the first place - just merge them into main
articles, like that traffic circle case from a few days back, and
let the wiki process determine whether the merge was adequate or
not. If peoples' beef is really with the _information_ being in
Wikipedia, that's also something that can be sorted out via the
wiki process - articles get trimmed and streamlined and split into
sub-articles all the time without going through a voting process.
That's so true it isn't even funny. It also makes one think if it
really would be all that bad if AfD was just shut down for a month
like David Gerard proposed. I personally think that merging an
article isn't all that more complicated than setting up an AfD, if
you see setting up an AfD as more than writing "nn v -~~~~". Your
mileage may vary, of course.
One of the things I found in my hunt through AfDs for invalid
nominations and speedies was that there was a very, very small
portion of the 117 articles I looked through that needed to be there.
15 or so should have been slam dunk keeps, or at least merges.
Another good chunk were speedies. An equally large chunk, however,
were, if not speedies, at least things that any sensible person who
watches AfD for a day or two could determine the result of in
advance. If we add "verifiability" as a speedy criterion, the number
that could be speedied goes to around 85%, I think.
Which is to say, the number of articles on a day that actually need
to go to AfD on a day is incredibly small. In reality, only probably
five or six articles a day need out and out deletion debates. Which
would in turn help AfD stop being a vote and start being a discussion.
But apparently moving in this direction gets you RfCed with an
intention of being taken to the arbcom, so there's some logistical
problems to work out, it seems.
-Snowspinner