On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that turning off AFD, or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net. Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
Umm, you're saying that giving an article that "should be deleted" might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be deleted? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong! We cannot have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist! That will never do! :)
Indeed. MGM, you appear to be approaching article deletion as a win/lose process, where keeping an article constitutes losing.
- d.
It depends, as long as we can't speedy delete obvious unexpandable dicdefs and bandvanity, we need AFD to deal with them. Those have to be deleted and if they're not I think Wikipedia as a whole loses. There's other articles I think should be kept, which is exactly why I think AFD should be kept. Give people a chance to convince others keeping certain articles is the right thing to do. If you check my 100 day AFD statistics you'll see I'm not the deletionist you make me out to be.
I'm trying to improve AFD to lessen the poisonous atmosphere, yet keep what I consider to be its good points. You seem to be radically against AFD, suggesting to me you feel having anything deleted constitutes losing.
I know AFD won't scale, so I'm willing to compromise and work to propose something that improves AFD, yet is not as radical as closing it down alltogether even for a short time. But I seem to get opposition just for wanting to keep AFD in working order just because it's not perfect at the moment.
"Improve, don't delete" is a good stance to take on articles, so I don't see why it should be any different for AFD (in which case 'delete' is 'shutdown').