[WikiEN-l] Deletionism fails to serve the readers

[Gabe Johnson]

On 6/6/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not quite that bad: I find that about 80% of the articles that I
> know enough to tell and think ought to be kept are kept, and another
> 10% are debatable. 90% is doing rather well, by WP standards. The ones
> that get unfarly deleted are primarily the passable ones that nobody
> care to defend or improve, and I see no way to have a process that
> will protect in such cases. What we can do:
> 1/ is prohibit placing an article on Afd without notifying every
> editpr who has been substantially involved-- and similarly on
> sfd--everyone who has used a category or a template, or commented in a
> discussion on them.This can be done by a bot.

Good idea, and already encouraged, but this should be made firmer.

> 2/ prohibit nominating an article unless one has made at least a
> preliminary search, and found nothing usable--with a report of the
> search and a link to the results.

Yes, but you won't find everything on Google.

> 3/ to find a way to indicate approval of short articles.

I don't exactly understand what this menas, can you elaborate or give examples?

> 4/ to prohibit placing a second AfD within at least  6 months after a
> keep decision and 3 after a  no consensus, unless new negative
> evidence can be demonstrated at Deletion Review, and then to require
> individual notice to everyone present at the first AfD

Heck yes, but maybe shorten the periods *a bit*. But this is
*desperately needed*.
Also, we might need to make some exceptions for "messy" AFD's, like
ones that are a mess of open proxies and sockpuppets.

> 5/ To require continuing the debate if fewer than 5 WPedians have
> participated; after two additional periods, to automatically make the
> closure no consensus

First part is already done; I have never seen a situation where the
second part would be used, but I don't think it could hurt.

> 6/ to automatically restore history for examination on request to
> anyone who asks, and to the entire community during an XfD*

Yes, but isn''t it already there during an XFD? Perhaps you meant DRV?

> 7/ to prohibit speedies during the discussion except by the
> concurrance of 2 admins. Everything that gets there should stay the
> full time.This will apply to speedy keeps too--those stupid enough to
> nominate them wil have their work visible.

Yeah, ok, but you won't have trouble finding 2 admins.

> 8/ to track those repeatedly proposing deletions that are rejected,
> and display the results.

Good idea, but how so?

> 9/ to track those making closures overthrown at Deletion Review, and
> to post the results.

Possibly, but maybe have that more as a warning to them personally.

> 10/ to change the time period to 8 days to accomodate less frequent editors.
> and involving other processes:

I think more like seven...

> 11. that in cases of proven copyvio only the copyvio material be
> removed. If this leaves a page empty, that's a separate step.

This should be done already. I think.

> 12. The relevant parts of these provisions apply to speedies and prods as well,
> *with exceptions of true cases of blatant copyright violation, BLP, or
> other specific harm to individuals. The level of this should be the
> level required for office actions or oversight.

Yes. That would be necessary.

> I know a few of these have been rejected at various times.

So propose them, and link to the discussion-- I know I'll support most of it.

>
> This still leaves the basic problem of which KP complains--uninformed
> editors and stupid actions. Those will always be with us.
>

Unfortunately, yes. ~~~~

>DGG

-- 
Absolute Power
C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y