--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
So is the so-called deletion policy purely
decorative, and in fact
something that should itself be deleted to avoid
confusion?
'Cos what I'm saying is to just enforce the policy
that's already
there, and is referred to both at beginning and
end of VFD as being
a thing to follow, in the hope of making VFD
somewhat smaller so
that it may be more humanly manageable.
I really don't see what's so hard about actually
putting a reason bearing
a relationship to policy, particularly when VFD
explicitly says to do so.
To clarify, I was responding to Pete/Pcb21's suggestion that was, basically, "Why use VFD at all, we should just decide what should be speedy deleted and use that."
I am much in favor of your suggestion that nominations at VfD that do not reference a reason listed in the deletion policy should be removed forthwith.
-Matt (User:Morven)
But that's not what's being proposed here. What's being proposed is, if anybody coming into the discussion thinks that the reason for the listing isn't acceptable, they can just delete it from the VfD page. Why not just let it run its course, and vote Keep? Because radical inclusionists are afraid they'd lose the vote. ~~~~
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:28:02 -0800 (PST), Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
But that's not what's being proposed here. What's being proposed is, if anybody coming into the discussion thinks that the reason for the listing isn't acceptable, they can just delete it from the VfD page. Why not just let it run its course, and vote Keep? Because radical inclusionists are afraid they'd lose the vote. ~~~~
I don't think that whether we have an article on a subject or not should be decided by <s>popularity contest</s>mere majority/plurality voting. Should there not be visible and comprehensible principles that decide what is encyclopedic and what isn't? I don't think anyone (at least with any support) is proposing that people everyone should get a VfD veto, which is what your post implied, but rather that we don't let adding to the VfD page be something that can be done on a whim. If popularity was any measure, we'd have a million articles on celebrity trivia (_not a bad thing in itself_) and no articles in obscure areas of mathematics, or history.
-nsh
I don't think that whether we have an article on a subject or not should be decided by <s>popularity contest</s>mere majority/plurality voting. Should there not be visible and comprehensible principles that decide what is encyclopedic and what isn't? I don't think anyone (at least with any support) is proposing that people everyone should get a VfD veto, which is what your post implied, but rather that we don't let adding to the VfD page be something that can be done on a whim. If popularity was any measure, we'd have a million articles on celebrity trivia (_not a bad thing in itself_) and no articles in obscure areas of mathematics, or history.
-nsh
What do you mean if?
Rick wrote:
But that's not what's being proposed here. What's being proposed is, if anybody coming into the discussion thinks that the reason for the listing isn't acceptable, they can just delete it from the VfD page. Why not just let it run its course, and vote Keep? Because radical inclusionists are afraid they'd lose the vote. ~~~~
No, it's because they bored of having to re-establish long, long, long standing policy over and over and over again because of the way VfD currently works. Imagine you had to explain yourself everytime you used the revert button to undo edits against established policy.
Pete
Rick wrote:
But that's not what's being proposed here. What's being proposed is, if anybody coming into the discussion thinks that the reason for the listing isn't acceptable, they can just delete it from the VfD page. Why not just let it run its course, and vote Keep? Because radical inclusionists are afraid they'd lose the vote. ~~~~
No, I'm proposing it (not a strawman "radical inclusionist") because there's a shitload of nominations that have had *no listed rationale*. They're on the order of "I've never heard of it so it's not notable" - measuring the content of Wikipedia by their ignorance. They're nominations that, per the policy *shouldn't be there at all*, and make VFD unfeasibly long.
Also, VFD isn't actually "votes" - it's an attempt to establish consensus.
Pretty obviously, anyone deleting a nomination in the bogus manner you describe will be reverted in damn short order. I expect you will likely be the one doing so.
- d.