[WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

[geni]

On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
> >When you have 150
> > AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of
> > obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are
> > uncontested junk.
>
> "Uncontested" != "junk"
>

However it does mean that for five days no one who visted the article
thought it was worth keeping

> We just had an uncontested deletion of an article, and VFU was about
> to treat the application for undeletion with its usual feckless "the
> process was followed so keep deleted" idiocy.
>
> Yes, people who think that an article *must* be deleted *should* be
> required to explain why.
>
> Every single time.
>

You don't think the template namespace is has enough rubish in it already?

> Why is this a problem?
>
> If this professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential
> fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his
> college.  If he was more important but still not for an article of his
> own then the article could have been merged.

People move around

> Why are we going around deleting articles like this?

Becuase aprently no one cares about them.

> Why are people
> seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody
> need even give a reason any more?  That's utterly bonkers.

Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}}
(argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't
do any good.


--
geni