Steven Walling wrote:
Articles are not "uncontroversially
encyclopedic" when they being brought up
for deletion because of their lack of encyclopedic content or nature.
Unfortunately this is not always the case. AfD nominators are not
perfect and are sometimes operating at least partly in ignorance about
the subject of the article.
taskforce improving articles that don't have an AFD nomination would be more
in line with your flawed vision of what the project constitutes.
That's what the rest of Wikipedia is already working on. Also, why are
you so sure that it's Phil's vision of the project that's flawed? Last I
checked there were only four edits on the project's page, it's still
quite nebulous and open to interpretation.
the project extensively mentions comabting what they see as unnecessary
deletions in its intro and includes a direct link to AFD, then it's not a
resource for improving articles that need help the most, but a project for
making sure borderline articles get kept. That's inclusioism.
Not all AfDs result in delete, some result in keep. This alone should
indicate that not all nominations are "necessary." And besides, whether
an article is "borderline" or not is itself a subject that can often be