Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Fonseca Rendeiro]]
A model AfD, except for the word "vanity" which was unnecessary and irrelevant (though, as it turned out, true).
If you are unhappy with the way this article was deleted, David, maybe you could tell us how you would have preferred it to be deleted? I'm asking in good faith. How would you have expressed a delete opinion on that page if you had done so? And, if AfD were replaced with some other system of your choosing, how would you have handled this article in that system? Or do you think that deleting this article under any system does more harm than good?
Anyone who's been on this mailing list for 15 seconds knows you don't like AFD but I'm still not quite sure what you want to replace it with. You've suggested disbanding it altogether with the argument that it only deletes some 200 articles a day anyway. But disbanding it and replacing it with nothing would greatly increase the influx of new marginal articles. People who've previously been turned off by having their stuff deleted would be "back in business". The place would start filling up with articles on non-notable people, dolls, webcomics etc. ;)
But I know you're not actually a super-inclusionist. Just a couple of days ago you said on [[WT:AFD]]:
"Note: my personal opinion is that almost everything nominated on AFD does in fact deserve as quick, messy and painful a death as can be managed."
I'm not sure what to make of that. What system do you envision to achieve the following two aims?
a) Solve the PR problems currently generated by AFD.
b) Deal a quick, messy and painful death to almost everything currently handled by AFD.
But I'm probably misinterpreting, considering the opinions you've expressed elsewhere - like cautioning against haste in deletion - you were probably being ironic. Presumably what you want to do is:
b) Deal a slow, clean and painless death to almost everything currently handled by AFD.
Regards, Haukur
As I've been saying, I believe if we get more individual attention to the 1% of all debates that stir up these problems, we can effectively resolve this without cannibalising the existing system. The problem is that due to our consensus decision-making process, major deletion process reform cannot move forward (this was already true 1.5 years ago with [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]], which would probably have effectively tackled a lot of obvious "nn bio" articles). Tinkering around the edges only works for so long -- CSD can't be expanded forever.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])