[WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, geni wrote:
> > The AfD for Rock climbing is just the most outrageous of recent nominations
> > that contributes to the impression that AfD is broken
> >
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rock_climbing
> AFD appeared to work fine the article was kept.

See also [[Talk:Video_game_crash_of_1983]], though that never got to the
point of having an AFD.

Making people run around as fast as possible to stay in the same place is not
"working fine" just because the article was kept.

It highlights a real problem with the policies.  If you let anyone delete
uncited material, and you even consider original research as a reason to
delete an article, you leave the way open for vandals to intentionally
challenge random claims and random articles just to cause trouble.

What we *should* do is require that you must sincerely consider uncited
material questionable before deleting it (or using it to nominate an article
for deletion).  (Of course, this won't prevent the vandal from lying and
trying to delete the article anyway, but then, that's true of any policy.)