On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I don't really understand the purpose of letting all users delete. I'm not opposed to it, and don't see the disadvantage, but I
don't
see why it's an advantage either. Really I think the best solution would be to get rid of Articles for Deletion and replace it with...nothing. Pure trash which can't be fixed
can
be speedily deleted. Anything else can be turned into a short factual article or a redirect. Anthony
Geni was right. Deletion wars are rare because there's clear policy on it and admins are trusted members of the community who with a few occasional exceptions follow these rules.
Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
If we were to get rid of AFD, the creator of a crappy article could
repeatedly undelete it.
As opposed to repeatedly creating it? I don't see the barrier there.
If we were to address how people handle AFD,
they might actually learn why the article wasn't a good idea to start with.
That assumes that deleting a crappy article is the right solution. I'd say making a crappy article not crappy any more is a better solution.
PWD would call for page protection to stop the recreation,
creating loads of needless protected pages and less discussion about something people should really talk about.
We already have loads of needless protected pages. This has nothing to do with whether or not non-admins can delete. Non-admins already can undelete, in fact, people who aren't even logged in can already undelete.
Page protection isn't the only solution against vandalism. In fact, it's usually not even the best solution.