On 7/15/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/07/07, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We've renamed VfD this once, to get rid of
the 'votes', since it
shouldn't be about votes. Perhaps it is time to get rid of the D,
since it isn't really about deletion -- which involves an initial
assumption of bad faith -- but about review: what is the author
thinking? If the author is really trying to convey useful information
about an encyclopedic and notable subject (good faith), how can we
help them improve their work / extract better information from them /
guide them to reasonable style guidelines? "Articles for Deletion"
could be something related, very specific, and altogether different.
It might be sensible to have a cleanly
generalized "Articles for
Review" page that decides what to do with articles that have trouble.
Does it get pushed off to a subgroup, say via {{delete}} or
{{cleanup}}? perhaps there are niceties to be followed when deleting
something -- check in with the main authors, decide whether or not to
delete the talk page as well, archive as appropriate, update inbound
links, doublecheck that the authors aren't serially doing something
they shouldn't be. This could go to an "articles for deletion"
project -- at which point it is not about WHETHER to delete, but HOW.
Then it would make sense for the deletionists and people who care
about keeping the encyclo clean to run that shop.
:-O
:-D
Brilliant!
I recall Kelly Martin was once pushing this heavily, and a number of people
(including, *cough*, yours truly) have pointed out these problems in the
past. We really need to move beyond the blowing hot air stage and, you know,
try to push this through consensually. Assuming we can get a consensus on
this at all.
Johnleemk