Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/9/06, Molu <loom91(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
You put it very well. The matter is demonstrated
best by the question of notability. I believe all professors can have their articles, in
an AfD debate many will disagree with me. Consensus doesn't exist. What is the closing
admin supposed to do? If he is to apply his personal opinion regarding the debate then I
most certainly disagree. We will be better off with voting than giving admins more power.
You raise a very good point. I quite strongly believe that general
principles should be sorted out in one forum, and AfD should be
strictly about applying those principles to individual articles up for
deletion. It's exactly the same issue as with RfA - I believe we
should as a group decide how many edits are required for an admin, and
set that in stone. Then for any individual candidate, we can simply
check that he meets all the requirements.
Being an admin is about earning community trust. Sadly there are people
who vote at RFA who forget that means they are commenting on whether
they trust the user and instead have this notion that there are
standards to be achieved. The default position at RFA should be trust
is given until it is proven that there is a reason not to. Too many
people take the reverse view, with-holding trust until a number of hoops
have been jumped through. These kind of people place trust in their
standards rather than the admins. I saw someone oppose on the strength
of a number of nominators a candidate had the other day, something
somewhat inane. People are hedging their bets too far, trying to
ascertain whether their trust will be broken. We should simply be
stating our trust as it stands there and then. We have a procedure in
hand to deal with times when admins go round the bend. They're called
"Tell Jimbo and keep out of the way until the dust settles". :)
The only thing that isn't undoable as an admin is image deletion. The
rest has become pretty much fixable. Yes there are wheel warring
dangers and the like, but once you take an eventualist approach, it all
settles down a lot.
In the case of AfD, and more particularly, notability, we can vote on
the proposal "all published academics are notable". Should it pass,
then no "not notable" argument should ever be accepted on a published
academic. And should it fail, then you would need to find another
argument for keeping an individual article on an academic.
The problem with notability is that it's situated in muddy water, and
all attempts to clean the water up are resisted. It's an issue that's
never going to be sorted out until the community settles the issue one
way or another. Either the three key policies are all we need, and the
concept of notability is linked to them, or a concept of notability
separate from the three is established. Sadly too many people seem to
reject any defining of the concept, although I've never been clear why,
since their argument seems to be that the three key policies are enough.
To me that makes the case that the concept should be linked to the
three key policies, but it appears that proposal is doomed to fail.
But as it stands no not notable vote should ever be considered, since it
presents no argument as to why the topic in question is not notable.
I've been involved in discussions where an article asserts that it's
topic is thought to be one of the first in its field, and this isn't
deemed notable enough. Someone even argued that it either was the first
or it wasn't, something which to me contradicts NPOV policy. We should
never assert something is the first, we should assert it is claimed to
be the first by such and such a source, or it is widely held to be the
first. But that's my take on it.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/334 - Release Date: 08/05/06