Anthony DiPierro wrote:
How do you deal with crap everyone agrees should be deleted, but is not actually speediable? Here's a thought - make it speediable!
Anthony
Are you kidding? A year ago, the paranoid community rejected two different measures for something *in between* speedy deletion and AFD (both involved admin discretion but not full reliance on it). What makes you think anything will have changed this year? If people won't trust admins to semi-speedy something, why would they trust them to speedy something? If anything, considering how we've grown, I wouldn't be surprised if people would vote down proposals like Preliminary Deletion even harder. People are scared of the potential for admin abuse. And frankly, I don't blame them. Scandals like the bitter edit war over licence vs license in a Mediawiki template have proven that, sadly, our admins can and do get into trouble. Even the best of us, like Everyking, get too heated and involved in articles we edit that we cause pointless edit/revert wars.
An objective measure of an article's "deletability" would be one nobody could disagree with. For instance, you can't disagree that, say, fuddlemark got >90% support on his recent RfA, because that's an objective measure of support. (At least, you can't disagree without appearing insane.) However, many articles on AfD that get deleted by unanimous support have their "deletability" measured by subjective methods. To some people, schools are notable. To others, they are not. How do you resolve this? How do you objectively measure a school's "deletability"? Is "deletability" even an objective value in itself? Truth be told, it's a miracle our CSD have grown so big, because even they aren't objective. After all, how many of them received unanimous support? Clearly some people disagreed with them, and probably with good reason. This would inherently make them subjective.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])