[WikiEN-l] Turn off AfD

Sat Dec 10 09:19:19 UTC 2005

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>How do you deal with crap everyone agrees should be deleted, but is
>not actually speediable?  Here's a thought - make it speediable!
>
>Anthony
>  
>
Are you kidding? A year ago, the paranoid community rejected two 
different measures for something *in between* speedy deletion and AFD 
(both involved admin discretion but not full reliance on it). What makes 
you think anything will have changed this year? If people won't trust 
admins to semi-speedy something, why would they trust them to speedy 
something? If anything, considering how we've grown, I wouldn't be 
surprised if people would vote down proposals like Preliminary Deletion 
even harder. People are scared of the potential for admin abuse. And 
frankly, I don't blame them. Scandals like the bitter edit war over 
licence vs license in a Mediawiki template have proven that, sadly, our 
admins can and do get into trouble. Even the best of us, like Everyking, 
get too heated and involved in articles we edit that we cause pointless 
edit/revert wars.

An objective measure of an article's "deletability" would be one nobody 
could disagree with. For instance, you can't disagree that, say, 
fuddlemark got >90% support on his recent RfA, because that's an 
objective measure of support. (At least, you can't disagree without 
appearing insane.) However, many articles on AfD that get deleted by 
unanimous support have their "deletability" measured by subjective 
methods. To some people, schools are notable. To others, they are not. 
How do you resolve this? How do you objectively measure a school's 
"deletability"? Is "deletability" even an objective value in itself? 
Truth be told, it's a miracle our CSD have grown so big, because even 
they aren't objective. After all, how many of them received unanimous 
support? Clearly some people disagreed with them, and probably with good 
reason. This would inherently make them subjective.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])