There are extremists on both sides of the debate. Aside from them, the vast majority, I suspect, simply want a method for evaluating the inclusion of an article that's less time consuming, produces a less weighty page to read, and produces less in the way of flames.
There should, as other contributors have noted, be a method whereby obvious keep candidates and pages that should have been speedy deleted can be removed quickly, rather than clogging things up.
-Matt (User:Morven)
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 16:18:12 +1000, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
The very essence of what makes Wikipedia work is consensus. It concerns me that a handful of inclusionists, who realise that their views are not shared by the majority of the community, simply turn to claiming that "VFD is broken", because it does not get their desired results.
People have put things on VFD before that I've agreed with. I've argued a case that they shouldn't be deleted, and it's very rare that such an article has then gone ahead and be deleted. If you put up an argument, and the majority *still* think that it should be deleted, then tough. That's the way it works.
VFD *is* growing too large to be maintainable, but that's a result of our continued growth, rather than some evil plan by the deletionists to go on an annihilating spree. A solution to that needs to be found, and I'm not sure what, but allowing junk to remain in the pedia is not the answer.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l