[WikiEN-l] AfD should be Arguments for Deletion

Sun Oct 23 15:18:19 UTC 2005

On 10/23/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> 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.

Concur: voting violates the principle of consensus.

>
> 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.

True.

>
> * 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.

True.

>
> * 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).

True.

>
> * You can't just disagree with a valid argument; you have to expose a
>    fallacy in it, or provide a valid counter-argument.

Brilliant.

>
> * 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).

This would make deletion more subject to the admin's inherent bias;
"good arguments" is a very general term.

>
> * It reduces workload because you don't need to do anything in order to
>    show you agree.

But then you can't use AfD to inflate your edit count! </sarcasm>

>
> * It reduces workload because you have to put more effort into a
>    nomination, reducing the amount of nominations.

The backlog would be much more manageable (Good Thing).

>
>
> 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
>

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiacc