On 1/13/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
K P schreef:
The AfD for Rock climbing is just the most
outrageous of recent
nominations
that contributes to the impression that AfD is
broken
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rock_climbing
No it isn't. It shows that AfD is working perfectly fine.
What exactly is the problem, apart from that the article was nominated
at all?
Eugene
That is the problem that the article was nominated at all, in this case.
The time could have been spent researching and improving the Rock climbing
article.
The overall problem though is that there are guidelines and they're ignored
in favor of deletionists proposing articles for deletion because of their
poor quality regardless of the subject, or for a dozen other reasons not
related to suggested guidelines for deletion (the play only opened a week
ago so the article should be deleted).
Wikipedia policies are confusing in general to new editors because a number
of them are largely ignored by the community, but it's never clear to
newbies which ones are a joke and which ones are actually followed--this
leads to a serious amount of BITING in a hostile atmosphere. I've only done
AfD for a couple of weeks, and I've taken it off my watch list, because it's
frustrating debating articles nominated by editors who admit they're
nominating it *because they never heard of it*--over half the random
articles I get are on topics I never heard of. And the guidelines are no
clue to a newcomer.
Really, the overall concern is that there are policies for AfD and they're
ignored in favor of articles being nominated because they're poor quality or
someone never heard of something or its number of Ghits is low.
KP