There's a need for VfD or something like it.
1) Some have argued that most of the actual deletions need not be and
in most cases should not be actual page deletions. They can, for
example, often be redirects. The thing, is that it doesn't matter
whether the disposition is a very ruthless edit, making the page into a
redirect, or deleting the page. The issue is that casual observer who
is not a subject expert, but is a savvy Wikipedian, looks at a page and
thinks "this looks like obvious garbage that probably ought to go."
When a page is to be effectively deleted and you're NOT absolutely
sure, there needs to be a place to take it to where a few other
eyeballs can look at it, where there is a high probability of getting a
few comments and where things take place in a well-defined time frame.
2) In my subjective opinion, it seems to me that some of the criticism
that is ostensible being directed at the VfD process is, in reality,
directed against individuals. That may be well be a misperception, but
it is my perception.
3) There is such a thing as a VfD regular. VfD regulars have developed
a clubby atmosphere. VfD regulars have developed a very unfortunate
tendency to talk as if they were in an executive session where the
author was absent when in fact the author of the article has been all
but invited to the meeting. Frank and jocular expressions of disgust at
repetitive situations are common. These have reached the point of being
Bad Things, and I think the Dartmouth affair and its aftermath show it.
So many people now enjoy piling on to anything Dartmouth that an
article about the wildlife of Dart'''moor''' was recently
mentioned in
an "Oh, no, not another" context by someone who apparently couldn't be
bothered to look up Dartmoor in Wikipedia, on the Web, in a dictionary
or atlas, or anywhere else.
4) In theory, it seems to me, 95% of what's done in VfD could be done
by putting a note on the talk page of, say, [[The Law of Success]]
saying "I'm think this article is garbage and I'm going to make it into
#REDIRECT [[Napoleon Hill]]." The problem is that people really do
watch and respond to VfD postings, whereas article Talk pages on
garbage articles are not being tracked and do not get the benefit of
many eyes.
5) VfD does generate serious discussions. In many cases they are
thoughtful discussions. The outcome is rarely predictable and the
effect in many cases is beneficial.
VfD has problems. To say "It's broken" is overstating the case, and
figuring out what need to be done to improve it is not trivial or
obvious, since a lot of the sturm and drang is the result of genuine
differences in opinion about what the content of Wikipedia ought to be.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at
http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/