Keith Old wrote:
While I appreciate people are trying to think of ways
to improve a process
which they perceive as deficient, that process and others not involving a
central process open to all users would end up working very inconsistently
with articles being deleted or not at the whim of which admin comes through
at a particular time.
Let us look at an article about a person who is notable in Australia but not
elsewhere (for example) which is in a poor state. Editor A comes and tags
the article for deletion. Editor B comes through and deletes it. Neither
editor is aware of the significance of the person in Australia and the
article is deleted.
If it was listed on articles for deletion, an editor or editors from
Australia could argue for its retention and improve it meaning we have a
better article.
This is why I proposed splitting AFD by topic, and look where it got
me... I remember when I was more active on the [[WP:AWNB]] that we had a
section for "Australia-related articles on VFD", sometimes we would keep
these out of mainstream VFD, and we would perform the same courtesy to
other regional noticeboards.
Apart from that, I suspect that the undeletion process
will become unclogged
with many accusations of editors/admins acting in bad faith.
I concur. Under PWDS there is too much room to assume bad faith. Either
people will leave over month-long revert wars, or we will have groups of
sysops running around protecting and unprotecting articles in order to
try and "keep" or "delete" them.
I will flag now that I will not vote for any proposal
unless that I am
pretty sure that it will improve the system. I will not vote for any
proposal which removes the deletion process from the scrutiny of ordinary
users.
Indeed. Hence my scepticism of the "hidden semi-deleted pages" option.
Damn, I feel like being bold and just going and...
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \