[WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline Hitlist

Fri Nov 3 21:48:51 UTC 2006

On 11/3/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[WP:DRV]]. Allegedly set up to hear procedural cases, it has become
> a court of appeal whereby procedure is considered sporadically, and
> more often, where decisions that are unpopular among the main clique
> that watches DRV get overturned with no further chance of appeal. It
> has become one of the worst examples of a de facto committee on en,
> and is far past the point where any of its decisions should be
> considered binding.
>

"Overturned with no further chance of appeal"? Nothing to stop you
from listing it on AFD other the the risk of large amounts of drama.

> All of our notability guidelines, which fit together to provide a
> completely ludicrous overall picture. (It's far easier to get onto
> Wikipedia as a pornographic actor than as a webcartoonist.

Hmmm it would be quite odd to see a study that backed that claim up.
By easier do you mean "amount of effort expended" or percentage of
people in a certian area covered.

Pornographic actors tend to be better known and there are more
publications out there writeing about them.

> These are a mess of kludges created to sort out a momentary
> instance where six or seven articles of a given topic got AfDed in a
> short time period, leading to a guideline, usually written primarily
> by the people who wanted the articles deleted. We have, meanwhile, no
> generalizable criteria for notability, and thus no useful end in
> sight for these guidelines.
>

Mulitple independent sources.

> [[WP:RFA]], which, like notability, lacks any consensus anymore on
> what the overall standards should be, and has thus degenerated into
> utter madness.
>

People have been saying that for rather a long time. Shouldn't it have
exploded or something by now?
-- 
geni