On 07/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating work for everyone, with little benefit.
Yes, it can be overused. But it is also a legitimate tool, when you do honestly feel that the topic may not be useful or appropriate. And when it's obviously a keep, there's nothing wrong with closing and delisting the AFD to avoid wasting any more time.
If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or something and start a discussion on the talk page.
The problem is that if the article *is* a suitable candidate for deletion, the chances are this won't work - if the article is something inappropriate dropped in, there may well be no-one actually watching the article - no-one caring enough to go to the extent of being in a position to see your comments.
Not the most efficient of systems.
Nominating for AfD is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do people think?"
I find it interesting that even when someone explicitly says "what do people think?" they're not allowed to *mean* it. Could we try assuming that not all people are card-carrying deletion obsessives, please?
[I have seen it asserted in this debate that people go around just looking for articles to delete. I do find that a rather surreal idea - what, they spend hours hitting random-page?]