On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I was referring to the fact that it's certainly *possible* to delete crap without putting it through AfD, and is probably within policy to do so. If it isn't within policy to delete crap started by anons which no registered user would have bothered to fix and move to article space, then the policy is flawed, not the software.
WP:AFC handles that quite nicely. But I'm not sure where we're going with all this.
Where we're going is that AFC *doesn't* handle things nicely. It's a terrible hack. If you think AFC works well, you apparently don't use it very much.
Of course, part of my second idea above was that we not only make it explicitly within policy to speedily delete crap started by an anon, but that we make it possible for the vast majority of established users to do so.
It's possible for anyone to nominate the article for speedy deletion. I suppose giving "deletion for anonymous articles" rights to people is possible, but fraught. Is an article that has been edited by a registered user still a candidate for mega-speedy deletion?
Until someone approves it, yes.
Anyway, yes, it's possible for anyone to nominate an article for speedy deletion. This is why I think your argument that "AfC is less work for us, the established Wikipedia community, than is putting crap new articles through AfD" is a strawman.
Anthony