[WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

Basically, I agree with Keith here.
We need some centralized discussion. Not only is does it take a lot
less time for admins to manage one central place and delete what needs
to be deleted, it's also easier to refer people to that place.

Also without AFD, there's still too many articles that can't get
speedied because of a technicality. "More than one person bvut still
vanity" and "advertising" come to mind. They're deleted 99% (figure of
speech) of the time and AFD research shows those are the kind of
deletions often uncontested.

How are we going to get rid of non-speediable crap without AFD?
How is everyone going to have input (the wiki way)?

Turning off AFD even for one day will cause too much of a mess.
Sure, we can clean it up eventually, but why open your bag of trash
indoors when the garbage man is waiting outside?

No matter what method you use, deletion is always going to have some
ill-will with it. It's something that can't be avoided until we all
reach common ground, and stop taking deletions personal.

As Keith said, you can use AFD without any ill-feelings by simply
bringing forth good arguments.

Mgm

On 12/9/05, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> I would have no problem with adding a requirement to notify the original
> author as part of a requirement for nomination. We should also look at
> systems where communities possibly affected by a decision are advised of the
> decision. Posting  articles on relevant noticeboards  is one way of doing
> it.
>
> We have a situation where Wikipedian A disagrees with Wikipedian B over all
> sorts of issues such as schools, webcomics, etc. We have to look at ways of
> trying to reach some sort of common ground and involving the community as
> much as possible in the decision. Ultimately, we have to delete some
> articles that just aren't suitable for Wikipedia and we should have a
> process where as many people
>
> Ultimately, I have looked at RfAr. As far as I can see most of the cases
> relate to pushing POV on particular pages. That would continue whether or
> not we continued with AfD or some other system.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>
>
> Keith Old
>
>
> On 12/9/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Keith Old wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > The creator often doesn't have a chance now, because the AFD regulars
> > think it's too much like work to notify them.
> >
> >
> > > Personally, I don't go to Articles for Deletion to win arguments or to
> > salt
> > > the earth. Nor do the vast majority the hundreds of other people who
> > > participate in the process. From my experience most people on AfD are
> > > amenable to good argument. We should Assume Good Faith regarding
> > > participants in Articles for Deletion.
> >
> >
> > See current RFAr. It blatantly encourages an atmosphere of bad faith and
> > that's damaging.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>