[WikiEN-l] AfD should be Arguments for Deletion

Sun Oct 23 15:43:31 UTC 2005

On 10/23/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> * Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD should
>    establish the community concensus.
>

Nothing to stop you debateing along with voteing. See
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoism]] for an example

> * It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article,
>    nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion and
>    hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such
>    that the valid ones remain.
>

Have fun trying to inforce that one. Particulary have fun trying to define valid

> * You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do
>    so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter-argument).
>

Nothing exists to stop you bring forward an argument (indeed I'm
currently trying a policy of never voteing and always commenting
(which reminds me we never did sort out the copyright issues at
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Community Schools]].

> * You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a
>    fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.

Can't find an SI unit for defineing the level of validness of an argument.

> * AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be deleted if
>    after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10
>    days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved
>    and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained
>    notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and "previously
>    deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument,
>    thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on process).
>

Can't find an SI unit for measureing goodness. Incerdently if you want
battles that go on forever can I suggest you get involved in areas
related to the middle east conflict
.
> * It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in order to
>    show you agree.

Huh?

> * It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a
>    nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.
>

That is ment to be a good thing?

> Discuss. :)
> Timwi

Go and spend ten min doing something useful on wikipedia to make up
for the time I have just wasted responding to you.

--
geni