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

Fri Nov 3 22:45:34 UTC 2006

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:35:26 -0500, 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. 

Rarely.  Few are overturned and deleted, I think slightly more are
overturned and undeleted, but in most cases it seems to me to be
people bitching about deletion of fundamentally unverifiable articles.

>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. Or, if you  
>want to ) 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.

Again, I think this is nonsense.  Most of them seem to be written by
the people who want the crud *included*, which is why we have such a
farcically low bar to porn "stars".

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

Yup.

>[[WP:FA]] and to a lesser extent [[WP:GA]], which, like RFA, suffer  
>from such a wildly disparate set of standards that the process of  
>passing them is more a process of politics than of actual quality.

Never managed to get an article to either, mainly I think because it
needs a number of interested editors who are determined to see their
article in lights; not many people are interested in [[Giovanni
Punto]].

>[[WP:RS]] still stands, due to the lack of passage of [[WP:ATT]].  
>It's still as big a problem as ever.

What, people's refusal to find decent sources?  Sure is.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG