[WikiEN-l] Nominations for deletion, too short, not trivia

[Andrew Gray]

On 07/06/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's a really annoying habit. There are genuinely articles that should
> be deleted out there. And plenty of others that aren't, but were
> nominated for crappy reasons. Nominating articles apparently at
> random, just to give AfD'ers something to think about is just creating
> work for everyone, with little benefit.

Yes, it can be overused. But it is also a legitimate tool, when you do
honestly feel that the topic may not be useful or appropriate. And
when it's obviously a keep, there's nothing wrong with closing and
delisting the AFD to avoid wasting any more time.

> If you're not sure whether an article should exist, use {{nn}} or
> something and start a discussion on the talk page.

The problem is that if the article *is* a suitable candidate for
deletion, the chances are this won't work - if the article is
something inappropriate dropped in, there may well be no-one actually
watching the article - no-one caring enough to go to the extent of
being in a position to see your comments.

Not the most efficient of systems.

> Nominating for AfD
> is saying "This should be deleted, all in favour?!" Not for "What do
> people think?"

I find it interesting that even when someone explicitly says "what do
people think?" they're not allowed to *mean* it. Could we try assuming
that not all people are card-carrying deletion obsessives, please?

[I have seen it asserted in this debate that people go around just
looking for articles to delete. I do find that a rather surreal idea -
what, they spend hours hitting random-page?]

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk