On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/10/05, Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
G'day Keith,
Alternatively, we shouldn't shut down a
system that works reasonably
well and performs an important task without having something that
works better.
Ay, there's the rub. I get the feeling those arguing for shutting down
AfD don't feel that it *does* perform an important task. Rather, they'd
prefer not to have deletions at all (other than CSDs, which already
apparently go too far ...).
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
I think Mark has an excellent point here. Some of the people
supporting AFD being turned off seem to think that. Others just want
to get rid of any poisonous feelings.
For my part, I just want to get rid of the enormous waste of time.
I think deletion policy should provide to deleting or
shutting off AFD itself.
Don't delete an article if it is a vandal target yet a valid article
topic. If it can be improved, do so and don't delete it. We'd be
deleting stuff like "George W. Bush" and "GNAA" on a regular basis
for
the wrong reasons.
If something is wrong with AFD, then those exact problems need to be
found and addressed. Shutting off AFD is a cop out.
I kind of think we should take the exact opposite approach. Shut off
AFD, and then we'll find out what was right with it. Then those exact
solutions can be found and addressed.
Anthony