On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson" carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD was closed.
It is strange that you see it this way. As far as I can see, DRV is one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based approach. Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the project.
Obviously it's not consistent, but I have seen patient explanations to purveyors of egregious vanity and other examples of good practice.
I have also seen that the process is denounced by those who fail to get their favoured articles kept - the ED mob, for example. That is not DRV's fault, it's the fault of people who have a stake in the content of an article becoming excessively impassioned.
In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like vanity for the creators. Several people at DRV asked that those which were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately, since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy.
But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a class of articles. Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in that discussion should be deleted.
Guy (JzG)