[WikiEN-l] Article deletion

Tue Sep 13 14:19:12 UTC 2005

>From: fun at thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard)
>
>JAY JG (jayjg at hotmail.com) [050911 18:41]:
> >From: Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com>
>
> > >No, afd just needs to *die*. I still don't see why anyone thought
> > >renaming it would fix the problems.
>
> > I can't imagine why anyone would imagine it needs to die,
>
>
>Well, I've been trying to explain ... we have two forks so far caused
>directly by the way the current deletion mechanism works socially. How many
>more would be enough?

It depends on the content and viability of those forks.  Are they forks that 
contain information that would be suited to Wikipedia?  Does Wikipedia 
suffer by not having those articles?  Is it likely they will still be around 
in 2 years?

> > or what they
> > imagine would handle the dozens of silly articles added to Wikipedia 
>each
> > day which rightfully should be deleted.
>
>They can collect for a month while we try to work out a less toxic deletion
>mechanism that will scale.

As it is AFD is overloaded; how will the new mechanism deal with the daily 
onslaught *and* 5000 articles that have piled up while we were searching for 
some new ideal mechanism?

> >  Let's try to remember that 90% of
> > the articles nominated for deletion should, without question, be 
>deleted.
> > The fact that some people feel the "culture" at AfD has become "toxic" 
>is
> > perhaps an issue that should be addressed, but let's not continue to 
>assert
> > that AfD needs to go simply based on the 10% of nominations that are 
>more
> > controversial.
>
>
>No, it needs to go based on the effects on the community of those 10% (I
>would have said 2-5% myself, but anyway).

I agree that it's under 5% that are truly controversial, but I didn't want 
to overstate the case.

Jay.