On 12/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
I disagree that it's not possible to come up
with objective criteria
for deletion. I disagree with the sentiment that "Deletion will
create ill-feelings no matter how they are dealt with", because some
methods of dealing with it causes much more ill-feelings than others.
I don't think showing contested articles to a larger public for less
than a week is beneficial. If it's that important, the public will
find it anyway. If it's not that important, then it's no big loss,
especially if the action can be reversed a month, two months, three
years later.
I didn't say it was impossible to come up with objective
criteria,
just hard to find some everyone agrees with for some types of
articles.
AfD doesn't scale. Speedy deletion does. It's worth the trouble to
do the hard work to create a system that scales.
Correction: We can't make everything that needs to
be deleted
speediable. Some things need interpretation and thus discussion. (I
said anything)
Even if that's true, I suspect the types of things that need
discussion are a tiny subset of what gets deleted by AfD. Like I said
somewhere else, maybe AfD would wind up getting resurrected in some
new form after we learn what kinds of articles speedy deletion
absolutely can't work for.
People are not online all the time so Recentchanges
and Watchlists
aren't going to cover everything they care about that is nominated for
deletion.
People aren't on AfD all the time either. The solution for both of
these problems is undeletion.
I for one, would hate to trawl through hours of edit
logs
when you can just have them all neatly logged in one place. For
example, I wouldn't have noticed Emerson Spartz being nominated for
deletion. That was important to me and it would've made it hard for me
to find if AFD wasn't centralized. We shouldn't make people search for
debates just because they hurt someone's feelings.
I do hate to trawl through AFD. In fact, I just don't do it. Try
avoiding AFD for a few months. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised
about how the wiki continues to work. You might just find yourself
never coming back, though.
I don't
think it's necessary to keep "nominations" from
hiding in obscurity. Again, if it's important, someone will notice it
and reverse it. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter anyway. This is
especially true because we already point out that an article has been
deleted when someone actually tries to read that article.
Speedy deletion
nominations aren't permanently logged in a central
place, only in the edit history. They disappear from the directory as
soon as the tag is removed. Have you got any idea how often speedy
tags are removed? Just because I don't notice them being removed,
doesn't mean it's not important.
Ah, I see what you mean now, you're talking about speedy deletion
nominations. Can't these be put on [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for
a central location? I don't really see what this has to do with AfD,
anyway.
Furthermore,
how many people actually look at AfD every single week to
check if any articles they care about are being deleted? I'd imagine
it's not many. The time that articles are kept on AfD is already far
too short to expect that many objectors will notice in time.
What point of mine
was this aimed at?
Well, it was aimed at my misunderstanding of point 5 :). But it
applies to point 4 as well. It's already a pain in the ass to watch
for deletions.