[WikiEN-l] WP:RS >> WP:V

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"David Goodman" wrote

> There are three problems to relying on AfD alone
> 1. the load on AfD is everything has to come there because there are
> no clear guidelines for people trying to write articles in good faith
> 2. the impossibility of holding a rational discussion on AfD without
> some rules to refer to in the argument--it all becomes a matter of
> whether ILIKEIT.
> 3.  lack of consistence (and we deal with this by actually saying we
> dont need to be consistent, the tell-tell sign of a immature system
> that has defined neither its practices or its principles.)

To repeat an old argument: the advantage of AfD is that when, to a rational person, the notability question is something that could go either way, we guillotine the discussion. It is clearly the case that the really marginal decisions include/delete could take up almost all the time in a review process. And those are the ones that matter least: basically it is a toss-up whether they benefit or hinder the project, so make a decision, and allow it to be changed six months later.

Your point 3 is the same as before - everything should be "defined". Well, there is no such need. At the margin, but only there, consistency is the proverbial "bugbear".

There is plenty to be said against AfD, but your slap at immaturity of the system isn't really it.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam