On 12/10/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm saying that turning off AFD,
>or using an alternative tagging method like the one speedy uses now
>allows for articles that should be deleted to slip through the net.
>Especially when they have 2 weeks or a month to be manipulated.
Umm, you're saying that giving an article
that "should be deleted"
might, given time, actually improve to the point where it cannot be
deleted? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
If it *is* what you're saying, then obviously that's wrong! We cannot
have people improving articles that someone else thinks should exist!
That will never do! :)
Indeed. MGM, you appear to be approaching article deletion as a win/lose
process, where keeping an article constitutes losing.
- d.
It depends, as long as we can't speedy delete obvious unexpandable
dicdefs and bandvanity, we need AFD to deal with them. Those have to
be deleted and if they're not I think Wikipedia as a whole loses.
There's other articles I think should be kept, which is exactly why I
think AFD should be kept. Give people a chance to convince others
keeping certain articles is the right thing to do. If you check my 100
day AFD statistics you'll see I'm not the deletionist you make me out
to be.
I'm trying to improve AFD to lessen the poisonous atmosphere, yet keep
what I consider to be its good points. You seem to be radically
against AFD, suggesting to me you feel having anything deleted
constitutes losing.
I know AFD won't scale, so I'm willing to compromise and work to
propose something that improves AFD, yet is not as radical as closing
it down alltogether even for a short time. But I seem to get
opposition just for wanting to keep AFD in working order just because
it's not perfect at the moment.
"Improve, don't delete" is a good stance to take on articles, so I
don't see why it should be any different for AFD (in which case
'delete' is 'shutdown').