[WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

Mon Oct 17 03:09:36 UTC 2005

On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/16/05 1:10 PM, "Bryan Derksen" <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'm more concerned with the votes
> > themselves; a string of "delete, nn" or "keep, notable" can swing the
> > outcome of a vote but provides no actual basis for it ("me too" votes
> > provide a basis by proxy, but don't themselves add anything new to the
> > discussion).
>
> Why should there be a requirement that someone has to waste time by
> repeating the explanations given by other people for deleting an article?

I think the issue is when *no one* gives an explanation for the deletion.

If an article is non-notable, it's non-notable. There is no requirement that
> anyone who votes has to write explanations for anything. When you have 150
> AFD noms per day, it is absurd to suggest that there is some sort of
> obligation to explain votes, especially when so many nominations are
> uncontested junk.

If I recall correctly, there used to be a requirement to explain all votes,
and admins were supposed to weight unexplained votes accordingly. And if you
don't have the time to explain your reasoning 150 times, then you shouldn't
be voting on 150 nominations. If you don't have the time to explain your
reasoning, then you didn't have the time to read the article and do a bit of
basic research into the topic you're voting on. Please, if you're going to
be uninformed, don't bother voting.

-FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia
>