On 7/13/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
And the point I was making wasn't that it's bad to encourage participation in AFDs, but that this is canvassing for AFD work that begins with the presupposition that the whole system needs double checking and that deletions as unencyclopedic are more often than not flawed.
I don't see why the system should not need double checking. It's that kind of thing that keeps things honest & above board, in both directions. Deletions as unencyclopedic often at least have the potential to be flawed; for one thing, 'unencyclopedic' is simply a way of saying 'I want it deleted' in a long word.
It thumbs its nose at the validity of the results of the regular AFD process by saying we need to build a task force to go about sweeping up.
The average AFD process involves under a dozen people voting, most of whom are either "AFD regulars" or people involved with the article itself, positively or negatively. This seems like a very poor pool of people to be deciding what gets deleted in our vast project, doesn't it?
While this might be in order if there really was big problems with a certain type of deletion going on, I simply don't agree. I have faith in the usefulness and veracity of the AFD process as it stands, without any outside interference or lobbying.
I'm glad that you do. Myself, I have little faith in its results being predictable, repeatable, or indicative of very much at all.
-Matt