Tony,
At the moment we have a process where these debates are centrally located and where the communities that may be affected can be advised. I do this for Australia related deletions for example.
If we got rid of AfD, we'd have to sort through the Deletion logs,
Under that system, articles can be deleted with hardly anyone knowing. Further, if you are a newby, you are not necessarily going to know where to go to have your say.
It would be less user friendly and less accountable than the existing system. That is why I strongly oppose it.
I simply add: if in doubt don't change.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 12/9/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/9/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
David,
What I think is what would happen is that more articles would end up
being
speedy deleted with the author often not even having a say. Nor would
they
have the chance to improve their articles in response to criticism.
Yes. Those non-speedy candidates that are deleted out-of-process and are capable of being articles of some kind can be speedy undeleted again under the undeletion policy. This isn't rocket science. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l