Yes but determining who decides what is "good" and what is "crap" is the basic problem here. The deletion process isn't perfect but it's better than individual admins or users deciding what should be "rescued" and what shouldn't be. The whole purpose of the deletion process is to get community consensus as to whether an article should be kept or not. It's attempting to balance inclusionists like yourself and deletionists like me. If a better system can be devised, wonderful, but ditching it altogether is a bit rash and foolhardy to me. Mike
On 1/29/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/28/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
The problem is that some people treat the process oriented requests as content-oriented and say: "No, we won't undelete it - it doesn't look like a worthwhile article to me." And some people treat the content-oriented requests as process-oriented and say: "No, we can't undelete it because the AfD was legit."
This is not good, DRV has to be able to handle both types of requests sensibly.
No. We should never restore crap content, no matter how mucked up the process was that deleted it, and we should always restore good content, no matter how perfectly the process that deleted it was followed.
Anything else is putting process before the encyclopedia. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l