-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob stated for the record:
This would be a kangaroo court waiting to happen.
We should of course do more to encourage research before someone submits something for deletion. However, people have different research skills, different access to resources for doing so, and differing opinions on where to set the bar for inclusion. So this "review board" would either confine itself to the worst offenses (like the guy who put up [[Jean-Luc Picard]] for deletion), which can be covered by normal admins and WP:POINT anyway, or have a chilling effect on WP by essentially criminalizing differences of opinion.
Submitting an article to AfD really should be no big deal. Things that shouldn't be deleted get nominated, but that doesn't mean the sky is falling. Just vote keep and get on with editing.
I'm afraid your casual dismissal of the issue will not make it go away.
Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recapitulate: Jimbo receives e-mail messages /at least daily/ from outsiders wondering why "we" [the AfD gang] are so nasty and insulting as we delete easily-verified information about highly notable people. The AfD gang is actively doing damage to Wikipedia's reputation on a on-going, daily basis.
Will these assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks make the sky fall? No, the servers won't even crash. Is this continuing harm to the encyclopedia a real issue that must be fixed promptly because the rate is accelerating? Yes.
- -- Sean Barrett | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun sean@epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter