On 9/30/05, Nicholas Turnbull <nicholas.turnbull(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There definitely seems to be this ongoing argument
over the way AfD is
handled, or whether or not it is being correct or accurate in its
judgements for articles to be deleted. This seems to get dredged up
once every, say, three months (along with arguments over RfA
standards) and as yet we haven't really done anything very firm about
it, except change the name of what seems to me to be a universally
hated procedure.
Deletion is a big issue. There is the big devide between deletionists
and inclusionsts. Whatever arena you chose to have the fights in there
are going to be problems. At least AFD keeps it fairly contained. You
don't ever have to go near the place.
To those taking issue with AfD deletions - forgive me
for being an
arsehole, but {{sofixit}}. I think that rather than arguing over the
way that AfD operates, we should work towards fixing or replacing it,
using these cases where users have taken exception to AfDs as feedback
for the current process. Otherwise, we'll just be having this same
argument in three months time or so, in a sort of "Groundhog Day"
scenario. :-) And we all know how unproductive arguments can be on
Wikipedia.
Best regards,
-- Nick, [[User:NicholasTurnbull]]
Arguments about AFD that will go nowhere I can live with since it
doesn't require any new policy and doesn't have any impact on those
who wish to avoid the debate.
--
geni