[WikiEN-l] Meanwhile, AfD grinds on

Mon Oct 17 17:10:48 UTC 2005

geni wrote:

>On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 10/16/05, Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>>      
>>>
>>"Uncontested" != "junk"
>>
>>    
>>
>
>However it does mean that for five days no one who visted the article
>thought it was worth keeping
>  
>
At the time of this writing en has 776,230 articles. By definition, the 
articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are 
only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy 
to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss 
the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through 
to its deletion over a much longer period than that.

>You don't think the template namespace is has enough rubish in it already?
>  
>
Bit of a topic shift there. The template namespace is very different 
from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for 
that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.

>>If this professor Wolters really had been such an inconsequential
>>fellow, the article should have been redirect to the article about his
>>college.  If he was more important but still not for an article of his
>>own then the article could have been merged.
>>    
>>
>
>People move around
>  
>
Redirects can be changed. This is kind of a side-issue, though, specific 
to this one particular article.

>>Why are we going around deleting articles like this?
>>    
>>
>
>Becuase aprently no one cares about them.
>  
>
But you're only basing that on the results of an AfD, and a major point 
of this discussion is that some of us are arguing that some AfDs are not 
receiving the sort of attention that they should be.

Here's another idea that just occurred to me to toss into the pot, how 
about leaving AfDs open for a much longer period of time, like a month 
or so? Before reacting that this would make AfD's backlog enormous, bear 
in mind that it wouldn't affect the rate at which articles enter AfD and 
are deleted from AfD, and thanks to each day having its own page it'd be 
just as easy to handle the housekeeping. There'd just be 30 day-pages in 
the queue in front of /old rather than 5. This doesn't address the issue 
of unsupported votes, but it would be a step towards getting more votes 
from people who read the articles as opposed to those who specialize in 
reading the AfD listings.

>>Why are people
>>seriously suggesting that we're doing it in such numbers that nobody
>>need even give a reason any more?  That's utterly bonkers.
>>    
>>
>
>Time use of course it would be fairly trival to create with {{agree}}
>(argee with nominator) so if comments were really required it wouldn't
>do any good.
>  
>
I really don't see any difference between a vote that's explained with a 
useless "nn" and a vote that's explained with {{nn}} which expands into 
a paragraph-long genereric dissertation on the subject of notability. 
Typing those curley brackets doesn't require any extra thought and 
provides no extra information.