On Nov 3, 2006, at 4:48 PM, geni wrote:
"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.
Except that keeps are frequently being overturned to deletes (Or
simply overturned unilaterally and then upheld on DRV). There remains
the fundamental imbalance that articles can be AfDed three, four,
five, etc times, but that undeletion is a one-shot deal. This
problem, while not the whole of the problem with our deletion system,
underscores the bulk of the flaws.
> 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.
Though I should note, popularity is hardly the only concern of an
encyclopedia, hence the coverage of academic topics in more detail
than their popularity would imply. I should think it is not an
excessively insane view to point out that in terms of "value to the
world" (Which is really what we mean by notability, let's face it)
pornographic actors rank far, far below many areas we are far more
selective about. Even a Pokemon is more exceptional than someone
who's claim to fame is mostly that they have had sex.
> Mulitple independent sources.
A great guideline, so long as you're willing to ignore all but the
most pathological of articles. Unfortunately, that's a bad way to
approach the topic.
People have been saying that for rather a long time.
Shouldn't it have
exploded or something by now?
Unlikely - with several hundred admins, it could well be a very long
time before problems promoting new ones move to the realm of explosion.
-Phil