On 1/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No, no, no! This is the 4th time I'm tearing my hair out over a deletion debate.
I know that this doesn't apply in the case of a "notice board" but has a "double jeopardy" system for AFD ever been considered? Since normal deletions are based on consensus and consensus changes it shouldn't be absolute but it could be useful for certain kinds of deletions.
Notability is a good example. It would work like this. Someone doesn't think that "Joe Bloggshmoe" is notable and nominates his article for deletion and the consensus is " strong keep". The AFD discussion is then closed "with prejudice" which means that the article can never again be AFDed for "lack of notability". (but could be deleted for other reasons) This would make sense since "notable" people and subjects don't just one day magically stop being notable.
Such a system would keep editors from continually having to defend their articles in AFD and give them more time to improve them.
The fact that concensus can (and does) change is an important principle on Wikipedia. Any kind of double jeopardly rule would go against that, however restricted its application. I don't think it's worth it.
On 10/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that concensus can (and does) change is an important principle on Wikipedia. Any kind of double jeopardly rule would go against that, however restricted its application. I don't think it's worth it.
The fact that vandals continuously increase an editors load means that we get them. Why is it different for people who continuously want to remove information against previous decisions? A rolling consensus only has so many useful purposes. There are only so many times an editor will say the same things in a discussion before they just give up on Wikipedia as a messy bureaucratic system.
If the community aspect is less important than always being able to challenge the current situation than so be it, but dont say that you didn't realise that the community could be hurt by the decision.
BTW, double jeopardy is already in existence in a practical sense see WP:SALT and you dont see many people complaining that its existense goes against the "consensus" model, why is it different for keeping articles?
Peter
On 1/10/07, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, double jeopardy is already in existence in a practical sense see WP:SALT and you dont see many people complaining that its existense goes against the "consensus" model, why is it different for keeping articles?
Peter
Salting is only one side of the story. It helps keeing deleted stuff deleted. However, it has no effect on kept material.
Mgm
BTW, double jeopardy is already in existence in a practical sense see WP:SALT and you dont see many people complaining that its existense goes against the "consensus" model, why is it different for keeping articles?
Double jeopardy is the idea what once you've been found innocent you can't be tried again. The existence of WP:SALT is analogous to not giving convicted criminals an unlimited number of appeals. It is possible to appeal a salting, anyway - just go to requests for unprotection.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 1/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No, no, no! This is the 4th time I'm tearing my hair out over a deletion debate.
I know that this doesn't apply in the case of a "notice board" but has a "double jeopardy" system for AFD ever been considered? Since normal deletions are based on consensus and consensus changes it shouldn't be absolute but it could be useful for certain kinds of deletions.
Sort of. It actually got good vibes until I actually tried to use it in a discussion (after spending 6 weeks gaining the necessary consensus at [[Wikipedia:Speedy Keep]]), where it was then unceremoniously dumped.
This would be a smart move, which is why it will never get adopted.
-Jeff
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:01:11 -0500, "Ron Ritzman" ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Notability is a good example. It would work like this. Someone doesn't think that "Joe Bloggshmoe" is notable and nominates his article for deletion and the consensus is " strong keep". The AFD discussion is then closed "with prejudice" which means that the article can never again be AFDed for "lack of notability". (but could be deleted for other reasons) This would make sense since "notable" people and subjects don't just one day magically stop being notable.
If notability has been proven by reference to reliable sources, then AfD on grounds of notability will inevitably fail due to the presence of those sources in the article.
Of course, if it's just that lots of people say "Keep! Notable!" and don't put sources in to back it up...
Guy (JzG)