On Jan 20, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Hermione1980 wrote:
That's probably part of the problem with AfD:
People
don't want to expend the effort to do any sort of
research. That's also probably part of the reason any
suggested reforms get shot down in a ball of flames
(mixing my metaphors here, I believe); most of them
require more work than AfD.
One could say the same about a lot of articles that get put up for AfD.
If an article's authors had expended a little more effort in writing
them, so that they would clearly state the article's importance, they
could have saved people a lot of time nominating them and voting on
them.
In my opinion, this all comes back to the fact that the Cleanup system
is hopelessly broken. One cannot simply tag a borderline article - an
article about a subject that may be worthwhile but is hopelessly poorly
written, has no sources and amounts to a personal essay "cleanup"
because in all likelihood that article will sit around untouched with a
Cleanup tag for six months or a year or even more. So what's to do?
Nominate it for deletion, because while the subject may be worthwhile,
nobody's going to see it and be able to improve it into something
resembling a usable stub unless someone sees it - and if you put it on
AFD, at least someone's going to see it.
WP:AFD is the *single fastest way* to get a borderline/potential
article cleaned up into a worthwhile stub, because *people look at
AFD.* I agree, that means our system is broken. Let's figure out how to
fix Cleanup.
-FCYTravis