On 12/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Why delete an entire process to deal with user's personal actions and feelings? Going on a process deactivation rampage isn't going to do the job.
Because all process is instruction creep until proven otherwise, and can still become it. You realise of course that the process of actually changing deletion policy is utterly bogged down because no-one trusts anyone else's suggestions to be in good faith.
"user's personal actions and feelings" because the process has an atmosphere of assumption of bad faith. A deletion policy is a good thing; this one sucks by its results - driving knowledgeable people off Wikipedia, assumption of bad faith to all outsiders to the deletion process, unnecessary forking from Wikipedia (Comixpedia), etc.
Exactly how is keeping deletable stuff around for 2 weeks or longer a good thing? The longer you leave it the easier it is for people to muck up and let it slip through. I'm not talking about a deletion rampage, I'm talking about stuff that everyone already agrees on should be deleted.
Did you see Tony Sidaway's email giving the actual numbers? AFD creates angst way out of proportion to its actual effects on the article base.
The letters AFD appear 9 times on [[WP:AN/I]]
George Bush gets mentioned at least 10 times. George W Bush is just one article.
If you want to delete something, what's wrong with taking long enough to get it right? Five days is not enough. People who can't be fucked to tell the article creator are manifestly not taking sufficient care, but try adding that to deletion policy and see how far you get.
- d.
To be fair unless {{Subst:test}} counts as telling the author they tend not to be told about speedies either. -- geni