On 9/9/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know about frequencies, but I do agree
that what you have
described happens. Personally I think it would be nice if there were
standards by which to request a re-vote. That is, a given voter could
say, "This article has been significantly changed since it was
originally nominated and the original nominating criteria may no
longer apply. I'd like to re-list this and see what happens." Maybe
one or two users could certify it or something like that. Of course
you'd want some restrictions on it so that people don't try to "game
the system" by re-listing and re-listing. Hmm. Anyway, just a passing
thought.
If the article is being edited and re-edited, constantly being
improved enough to get certified by another user or two, I don't see
any problem at all with this type of gaming the system. In fact, I
think we should strongly encourage that type of gaming the system.
Of course, regardless, it is *still* up to those
writing the articles
to make their notability clear when they write it. An argument from
authority is useless on an anonymous encyclopedia. If the topic really
is that notable, someone else will write the notable article at a
later point, one would think.
Stubs expand only if they exist. This rhetorical "someone else"
seldom writes fully referenced and cited articles in one fell swoop.
The problem is that article authors have an investment in what they
write. VfD voters usually have no investment whatsoever; when I've
called for the most basic of research of notability before voting
"delete", a three second Google search, I've been accused of making
personal attacks against delete voters. VfD will always remain toxic,
especially to new users who aren't accustomed to it's climate, if we
cannot insist that delete voters put in at least some tiny effort into
research before voting.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused