[WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> This is an interesting one. An article "List of state-named Avenues in
> Washington, D.C." was listed for deletion recently but kept because of
> no consensus.  Someone thought "dang it, AfD is supposed to be a
> discussion, not a vote", and went to Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)
> to try to overturn the result for what he thought were weak arguments
> to keep.
> 
> Well that's all very well, but DRV (perhaps uniquely in all Wikipedia
> forums) does not operate by consensus but by majority vote.  So it
> looks to me like we've got a possible loophole where someone
> dissatisfied with an AfD result can go and have the article deleted
> anyway on a straight majority vote.  As it happens a lot of people who
> looked at the article in DRV thought it should be deleted (which isn't
> unusual--it's part of the culture in DRV)
> 
> So, I thought I'd give a second AfD a go. If the first AfD wasn't
> clear enough, let's try for a second. I accordingly relisted the
> article for deletion, explaining the circumstances and recommending
> keep.
> 
> Six people promptly said "keep".
> 
> Whereupon someone involved in the attempt to overturn the first
> deletion discussion and delete the article "unlisted* the article from
> AfD.
> 
> This is quite a quandary.
> 
> I've no doubt that this fellow is acting in good faith and genuinely
> believes that we cannot have a second AfD while the first is being
> reviewed, but I cannot see why not especially if (as seems here) it's
> clarifying that yes, Wikipedians really do want this article to be
> kept.
> 
> However he's not really granting good faith, is he?  He's removed the
> second AfD listing. I restored once but I don't edit war so I'm not
> going to get into that stuff.
> 
> So I turn to you, dear readers.
> 
> How am I to ensure that, if this article is deleted, it is only
> deleted on the basis of consensus?

1. Is the information verifiable?
2. Does the article contain original research?
3. Does the article cite sources?
4. Is the information presented in the article useful and of an
encyclopedic nature?
5. Is this whole mess driving good editors from the project?

If you answered "Yes", "No", "Yes", "Yes" and "Yes", Congratulations!
Please speedy keep the article and block those who persistantly disrupt
the project by their lack of common sense.

Regards,
-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060130/3de8fa01/attachment.pgp