While I appreciate people are trying to think of ways to improve a process which they perceive as deficient, that process and others not involving a central process open to all users would end up working very inconsistently with articles being deleted or not at the whim of which admin comes through at a particular time.
Let us look at an article about a person who is notable in Australia but not elsewhere (for example) which is in a poor state. Editor A comes and tags the article for deletion. Editor B comes through and deletes it. Neither editor is aware of the significance of the person in Australia and the article is deleted.
If it was listed on articles for deletion, an editor or editors from Australia could argue for its retention and improve it meaning we have a better article.
Apart from that, I suspect that the undeletion process will become unclogged with many accusations of editors/admins acting in bad faith.
I will flag now that I will not vote for any proposal unless that I am pretty sure that it will improve the system. I will not vote for any proposal which removes the deletion process from the scrutiny of ordinary users.
Keith
aka Capitalistroadster
On 9/13/05, Worldtraveller wikipedia@world-traveller.org wrote:
So how about scrapping afd/vfd and replacing with a system whereby an editor may tag an article with a 'candidate for deletion' tag and provide a rationale. Admins can patrol the resulting category, assess each case, delete as necessary. If someone disagrees with the deletion, they can either contact the admin who deleted to ask them to review their decision, or if they want wider community input there's vfu (which could be renamed afu?)
This seems to me to have the following advantages:
- It would de-centralise the process if people mainly contact the
deleting admin to query deletions. This would avoid a giant page of bad feeling. 2. An article on vfd might only attract 4-5 votes, which is not enough to really determine community consensus and so much is kept that probably should be deleted when things end with 'no consensus'. However, if things were deleted more quickly and restorations requested on vfu, the vfu decision would result in restoration if there was a clear consensus to include. If an article does not attract sufficient community input to determine consensus then it would remain deleted.
Any thoughts?
WT
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l