[WikiEN-l] AfD should be Arguments for Deletion

Sun Oct 23 16:12:54 UTC 2005

I propose CRPFDTNAC, for Continually Renamed Page for Deletion That  
Never Actually Changes - it seems most accurate of all.

-Snowspinner

On Oct 23, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Timwi wrote:

>
> VfD was renamed to AfD because it was supposed to be less about  
> voting.
>
> Yet people still vote.
>
> People should instead bring forward arguments; some pro-keep and  
> some pro-delete. Someone who has several arguments for or against a  
> particular article, should mention them all. Someone who just  
> agrees with an already-posted argument should not post because they  
> wouldn't be adding anything.
>
> Example:
>
> Someone nominating an article might write:
>
>     == [[Dr. Norma Nated]] ==
>     === Arguments for deletion ===
>     * The article is badly written.
>     * The article does not establish notability.
>     === Arguments against deletion ===
>
> Someone else may come across the article and think it should stay.  
> They should be made to think about why they think it should stay,  
> example:
>
>     === Arguments against deletion ===
>     * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as
>       at least one book [2], which establishes her notability.
>
> Another person might discover an argument as being fallacious. They  
> should move it to a new section:
>
>     == [[Dr. Norma Nated]] ==
>     === Arguments for deletion ===
>     * The article does not establish notability.
>     === Arguments against deletion ===
>     * Dr. Norma Nated has published scientific papers [1] as well as
>       at least one book [2], which establishes her notability.
>     === Fallacious arguments ===
>     * (for) The article is badly written.
>     ** Can be improved, thus not a criterion for deletion.
>
> Arguments why I think this system is better:
>
> * Voting merely expresses a single individual's opinion, but AfD  
> should
>   establish the community concensus.
>
> * It is more wiki-like. In the same way as nobody "owns" an article,
>   nobody should embody an argument (but people do embody an opinion  
> and
>   hence a vote). Everybody should be able to edit every argument, such
>   that the valid ones remain.
>
> * You can disagree with the sentiment to keep or to delete, but to do
>   so, you have to explain why (by bringing forward a counter- 
> argument).
>
> * You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a
>   fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.
>
> * AfD items no longer need to be "closed". The article can be  
> deleted if
>   after five days there are good arguments to delete, but if after 10
>   days a new argument comes along (e.g. the article has been improved
>   and referenced in the meantime, the person has suddenly gained
>   notability, etc.) the same discussion can be resumed (and  
> "previously
>   deleted as per AfD" would not work as a pro-deletion argument,
>   thereby increasing focus on content and decreasing focus on  
> process).
>
> * It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in  
> order to
>   show you agree.
>
> * It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a
>   nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.
>
>
> Discuss. :)
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>