On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson"
<carlopeterson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems
I see with DRV is
that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the
CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had
more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the
MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD
was closed.
It is strange that you see it this way. As far as I can see, DRV is
one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based
approach. Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content
and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the
project.
Obviously it's not consistent, but I have seen patient explanations to
purveyors of egregious vanity and other examples of good practice.
I have also seen that the process is denounced by those who fail to
get their favoured articles kept - the ED mob, for example. That is
not DRV's fault, it's the fault of people who have a stake in the
content of an article becoming excessively impassioned.
In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of
them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like
vanity for the creators. Several people at DRV asked that those which
were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately,
since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy.
But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a
class of articles. Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual
articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in
that discussion should be deleted.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG