On 11/3/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:DRV]]. Allegedly set up to hear procedural cases, it has become a court of appeal whereby procedure is considered sporadically, and more often, where decisions that are unpopular among the main clique that watches DRV get overturned with no further chance of appeal. It has become one of the worst examples of a de facto committee on en, and is far past the point where any of its decisions should be considered binding.
"Overturned with no further chance of appeal"? Nothing to stop you from listing it on AFD other the the risk of large amounts of drama.
All of our notability guidelines, which fit together to provide a completely ludicrous overall picture. (It's far easier to get onto Wikipedia as a pornographic actor than as a webcartoonist.
Hmmm it would be quite odd to see a study that backed that claim up. By easier do you mean "amount of effort expended" or percentage of people in a certian area covered.
Pornographic actors tend to be better known and there are more publications out there writeing about them.
These are a mess of kludges created to sort out a momentary instance where six or seven articles of a given topic got AfDed in a short time period, leading to a guideline, usually written primarily by the people who wanted the articles deleted. We have, meanwhile, no generalizable criteria for notability, and thus no useful end in sight for these guidelines.
Mulitple independent sources.
[[WP:RFA]], which, like notability, lacks any consensus anymore on what the overall standards should be, and has thus degenerated into utter madness.
People have been saying that for rather a long time. Shouldn't it have exploded or something by now?