David Gerard wrote: I think this would be an interesting experiment. Instead of deletionist and inclusionist camps throwing around anecdotes, you get a sizeable body of candidates to study, plus it encourages people to think about the process that they want to follow when the period ends and they have a whole pile of articles they want to process efficiently. We'll discover, how often borderline articles gets improved into good ones when left alone, or get made into redirs to existing articles. Some articles might be unfairly speedied, but if they're being tracked from a protected list, I think admins will leave the marginals to accumulate rather than risk being sanctioned for deleting worthwhile material out of hand. Stan

geni wrote: And the deletionists camp could of course just speedy-delete everything. Or, both camps could assume good faith and relax a bit, each not thinking that the "other guys" are a bunch of deranged encyclopedia-haters who want to destroy everything in an orgy of deletion and/or garage band stubs. :) A lot of people are currently disagreeing over what sorts of articles merit inclusion in Wikipedia, but it's not like most of those people think Wikipedia's going to go down in flames if the "wrong" standards are picked. At least, they shouldn't. Wikipedia is more resistant than that. Are there no inclusionist admins who would go on "deletion log patrol" if such a thing became common? Would you worry about a corresponding problem of unchecked undeletion? As one possible alternative, the "pure wiki deletion" method of simply blanking pages would make it a lot easier to double-check and revert by non-admins.

geni wrote: We're discussing an alternative to VfD/AfD. Copyright problems is a completely different matter, handled by a different process. I don't see the relevance or connection between the two.

On 9/14/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote: not if you are aiming for PWD. -- geni

On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Because accuseing something of being a copyvio will become a lot more common rather than being a tectic of last resort. -- geni

Phroziac wrote: So instead of the supposed consensus on VFD, which in reality at least lets all people have a say, we have one admin (in theory all admins) deciding whether an article is "notable" enough to be protected as deleted or not. I fail to see how this is an improvement. As an inclusionist, PWDS sounds somewhat appealing until we get to cases like this. Though I guess I could get it from the history and "merge" it with an existing somewhat-related article until the protection is removed.

It has been known. It will happen again. -- geni

On 9/14/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Really? you don't see how PWD would affect something that has to do with deletion? -- geni

"geni" <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f8060843050912185312a86a1c@mail.gmail.com... ...and later: Not quite managing to see just which of these you are more worried about... -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]