On 2/28/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
But if this suspension of AfD isn't driven by a specific reform agenda, but merely a discussion aimed at increasing the uniformity and predictability of the deletion process (in light of the waves of negative press for the last few months), it might be possible to avoid most of the potential backlash.
Perhaps another way to lessen the backlash while still motivating discussion and change would be to put temporary moratoriums on particular subject areas? In this case, for example, we could say "no more webcomic-related AfDs for a month while we work on a better policy to handle the subject area".
That way the people who fret about the dire consequences of not deleting marginal articles as fast as possible won't feel quite so panicked by the prospect of stuff accumulating for a month, and after the month was over it'd be easier to survey the new arrivals that went unAfDed in the meantime. Heck, it might allow time for articles that would normally be deleted to improve to the point where they survive even without major policy changes. That by itself would be useful.
Random idea to throw into pot:
We use AFD right now to cover a whole lot of different reasons by which one might want to delete an article.
Possible improvement: Develop separate processes for each reason one might have for deleting an article.
Some ideas along these lines:
Unreferenced and thought to be unreliable - something like Prod, with a longer timeout, see if anyone will come along and provide suitable refs, else it goes. Soft deletion (can be restored if someone comes along with good refs)
Notability - still a sticking point.
(and so on)