On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I disagree that it's not possible to come up with objective criteria for deletion. I disagree with the sentiment that "Deletion will create ill-feelings no matter how they are dealt with", because some methods of dealing with it causes much more ill-feelings than others. I don't think showing contested articles to a larger public for less than a week is beneficial. If it's that important, the public will find it anyway. If it's not that important, then it's no big loss, especially if the action can be reversed a month, two months, three years later.
I didn't say it was impossible to come up with objective criteria, just hard to find some everyone agrees with for some types of articles.
AfD doesn't scale. Speedy deletion does. It's worth the trouble to do the hard work to create a system that scales.
Correction: We can't make everything that needs to be deleted speediable. Some things need interpretation and thus discussion. (I said anything)
Even if that's true, I suspect the types of things that need discussion are a tiny subset of what gets deleted by AfD. Like I said somewhere else, maybe AfD would wind up getting resurrected in some new form after we learn what kinds of articles speedy deletion absolutely can't work for.
People are not online all the time so Recentchanges and Watchlists aren't going to cover everything they care about that is nominated for deletion.
People aren't on AfD all the time either. The solution for both of these problems is undeletion.
I for one, would hate to trawl through hours of edit logs when you can just have them all neatly logged in one place. For example, I wouldn't have noticed Emerson Spartz being nominated for deletion. That was important to me and it would've made it hard for me to find if AFD wasn't centralized. We shouldn't make people search for debates just because they hurt someone's feelings.
I do hate to trawl through AFD. In fact, I just don't do it. Try avoiding AFD for a few months. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised about how the wiki continues to work. You might just find yourself never coming back, though.
I don't think it's necessary to keep "nominations" from hiding in obscurity. Again, if it's important, someone will notice it and reverse it. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. This is especially true because we already point out that an article has been deleted when someone actually tries to read that article.
Speedy deletion nominations aren't permanently logged in a central place, only in the edit history. They disappear from the directory as soon as the tag is removed. Have you got any idea how often speedy tags are removed? Just because I don't notice them being removed, doesn't mean it's not important.
Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion nominations. Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for a central location? I don't really see what this has to do with AfD, anyway.
Furthermore, how many people actually look at AfD every single week to check if any articles they care about are being deleted? I'd imagine it's not many. The time that articles are kept on AfD is already far too short to expect that many objectors will notice in time.
What point of mine was this aimed at?
Well, it was aimed at my misunderstanding of point 5 :). But it applies to point 4 as well. It's already a pain in the ass to watch for deletions.