K P schreef:
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.
It only takes a single editor to nominate an article for deletion. If
the nomination is invalid, that's a problem with that single editor.
Any system in which it takes more than one editor to nominate an article
for AfD will lead to a two level system, with a pre-AfD Nomination for
Deletion discussion.
Any system in which it takes less than one editor to nominate an article
needs better AI than we currently have.
The time could have been spent researching and
improving the Rock climbing
article.
So someone should have speedy-closed the discussion sooner. I agree with
that.
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).
In most instances where a nomination does not follow the guidelines, the
article is kept, sometimes even speedy, which shows that AfD is doing
its job. Or common sense overrules the guidelines, which is good too.
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*
Where? Today's AfD contains over 100 articles already; I haven't found a
single nomination "because I never heard of it".
Eugene