[WikiEN-l] False AfD Nominations

[Nick Wilkins]

On 1/31/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It was closed with the support of Jimbo, on that exact grounds, so
> yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that it has been consistently
> kept on those grounds.


Jimbo's comments are nowhere on any of the three deletion discussion pages.
Not everyone agreed with him or you (heck, a lot of people aren't even
agreeing with *me* in the fourth discussion ;-) ).  There are a lot of
arguments floating around on each of them, including a number of people
arguing for the article to be kept on grounds of internet history/fame or
the like.  Don't you think it's at least possible that there are other
interpretations of the results?

Let me be blunter: if this is standard for how the community
> considers deletion (and I've seen precious little evidence of late
> that it's not), the community can no longer be trusted with this
> function.


If the community isn't to be trusted with making decisions on deletion, how
should deletion be handled?  There are things that clearly should be deleted
(which tend to speedied, prodded, or die nearly unanimously in AfD), things
that clearly should be kept (Ron's example above shows what happens with
something that clear), and things that aren't precisely clear.  How should
the third category be dealt with?

-- Jonel