On Nov 3, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:35:26 -0500, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:DRV]]. Allegedly set up to hear procedural cases, it has become a court of appeal whereby procedure is considered sporadically, and more often, where decisions that are unpopular among the main clique that watches DRV get overturned with no further chance of appeal.
Rarely. Few are overturned and deleted, I think slightly more are overturned and undeleted, but in most cases it seems to me to be people bitching about deletion of fundamentally unverifiable articles.
I can usually find one absolutely god-awful deletion a day on it that is getting inadequate consideration for reasons that have nothing to do with any useful definition of verifiability. Today's is [[Girly]], which I just went ahead and undeleted on the grounds that there was no point in sitting through a charade on DRV.
Again, I think this is nonsense. Most of them seem to be written by the people who want the crud *included*, which is why we have such a farcically low bar to porn "stars".
It tends to be, specifically, an uneasy and crappy consensus of the people who want to delete all of them and the people who want to include all of them, with an understandably but unfortunately low amount of input from the people who really don't care very much about porn stars. As a result every notability guideline tends to be a roughly halfway point between delete all/include all such that there is no consistency across topics.
What, people's refusal to find decent sources? Sure is.
That and a complete lack of understanding of what a decent source is. The latter is increasingly more prevalent than the former - citation of something to a mediocre source, particularly when nobody seriously doubts the accuracy of the information, is a far more preferable outcome than deletion of things that are sourced to completely reliable sources that fail to meet some editor's desire for a test that can be operated by a robot.
-Phil