On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was
referring to the fact that it's certainly *possible* to delete
crap without putting it through AfD, and is probably within policy to
do so. If it isn't within policy to delete crap started by anons
which no registered user would have bothered to fix and move to
article space, then the policy is flawed, not the software.
WP:AFC handles that quite nicely. But I'm not sure where we're going
with all this.
Where we're going is that AFC *doesn't* handle things nicely. It's a
terrible hack. If you think AFC works well, you apparently don't use
it very much.
Of course,
part of my second idea above was that we not only make it
explicitly within policy to speedily delete crap started by an anon,
but that we make it possible for the vast majority of established
users to do so.
It's possible for anyone to nominate the article for speedy deletion.
I suppose giving "deletion for anonymous articles" rights to people is
possible, but fraught. Is an article that has been edited by a
registered user still a candidate for mega-speedy deletion?
Until someone approves it, yes.
Anyway, yes, it's possible for anyone to nominate an article for
speedy deletion. This is why I think your argument that "AfC is less
work for us, the established Wikipedia community, than is putting crap
new articles through AfD" is a strawman.
Anthony