From: "J.F. de Wolff" jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk

The problem is that Vfd is presently very slow (one week is really very long). Also, if the math articles are legit, the author should aim to

make

as clear as possible how relevant it is! Sometimes a few words are

enough

to give some context.

No, I think the week is needed, for several reasons.

First: at the moment I have a bit of a Wiki-habit. Just as I check my email several times a day, I check my watchlist several times a day. And I'm ashamed to say I follow VfD a lot more closely than is good for me. But, believe it or not, there are many people who do _not_ log in several times a day, or every day. People take weekends off. They go on trips. They don't stop in Internet cafes to check their watchlist. A week is necessary to extend a fair opportunity for participation to people who are not glued to their Web browser.

Second, articles are frequently posted on VfD because, to the person posting them, they _look_ like something non-notable, or vanity--but are actually notable to people with subject-area expertise. Well, it has happened several times recently that people have made _perfectly reasonable_ postings to VfD. And, after a couple of days, people that _do_ recognize the topic as notable come in and say "wait, I know who that is." They explain, and not infrequently other people in the discussion, including people who originally voted delete, _including the original poster,_ will say "Oh, I guess I was wrong" and change their votes to "keep." Really! And that's a happy outcome.

Third, less pleasant but equally relevant. Many VfD discussions are really power struggles assessing the strength of factions. OK, let's say, "determining consensus." It takes about a week to give enough people a chance to get their word in and see what the vote really is. If the period were much shorter than a week, it would give an unfair advantage to the people who spend more time online in general, and more time in VfD in particular. The outcomes of these VfD discussions are never happy outcomes, but at least they are _reasonably_ fair outcomes.

Fourth, good or bad, quite a few articles get significantly improved as a direct result of being listed in VfD. I think we do want this to happen, and it's more likely to happen if there's enough time for it to happen. "Keep in present form," "keep as improved," "keep new article"--these are happy outcomes.

But... you're right about writing clear articles... I think 90% of the listings on VfD could be avoided if people would not yield to the instant-gratification urge of creating an article the instant they think about it. I think very few articles would get listed on VfD if people waited until they had put three decent paragraphs together before creating the article. Not necessarily a finished, polished, encyclopedia-quality article, just three decent paragraphs.

-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/