As I see it, an "original research" / "nonverifiable" witchhunt started last year. I think there is far too much "Wikipedia Caselaw" justifying removal of content for mere suspicion.
I'm glad as well, and surprised this topic picked up so much steam! I hope the result is a few practical, actionable process changes to afd/speedy.
One thing I caught a lot of flak for was deleting votes that contained absolutely no logic or even comment. My reasoning for this was based on WP:LAW that explained the voting process isn't about a headcount, but about reaching consensus. What consensus was such a voter attempting to reach? (except, of course, technical consensus via majority rule).
-S
On 1/9/07, Robert Brockway rbrockway@opentrend.net wrote:
I'm glad this topic has come up for discussion. IMHO the entire deletion process (including speedy deletion) needs to come up for review. It's too easy for articles to come up for AfD.
It was interesting to sit in a Greater Toronto Area Linux User Group meeting recently and hear people list many (IMHO) reasonable articles that had been deleted. This was a spontaneous discussion. I bet if so many people in Toronto are concerned about the deletion process that we aren't alone.
Rob