On Thu, 4 May 2006 14:59:36 +0200, you wrote:
It would be better to have a guideline which says someone should not even be nominated until they have passed agreed milestones, then we can assess candidates on their merits with the knowledge that they have passed some kind of minimum standard of wikipedian-ness.
Kind of like a speedy reject? Or more politely, a "speedy come back later". Sounds good to me. I propose 1000 edits, including 100 outside the article and user namespaces, and at least 500 within the article namespace. Also minimum 3 months active participation.
If precise minimum criteria was phrased in terms like :Create 1 featured article or N good articles or :Graduate from Erik's "Wikipedia School" (which itself had precise criteria)
then I would support it.
Sadly I expect any proposal would actually be terms of (virtual meaningless) edit counts, so I wouldn't.