[WikiEN-l] More on WT:AFD

Sat Jan 28 12:22:29 UTC 2006

> I personally feel that Deletion Review has a worse record than AFD or
> the other deletion forums.

The problem is that it has a split personality, dealing both with process
and content, and often has trouble keeping its eyes on the ball. It must
be a place where you can come and say things like:

"WTF? My article was speedied though it obviously doesn't meet any speedy
deletion criterion. Can't I at least get a chance to defend it in an AfD?"
(a process-oriented request)

But you must also be able to say things like this:

"I think AfD really dropped the ball when it deleted <X>. This is actually
quite a notable whatsit as shown by <Y> and <Z>. Can I have it back?" (a
content-oriented request)

The problem is that some people treat the process oriented requests as
content-oriented and say: "No, we won't undelete it - it doesn't look like
a worthwhile article to me." And some people treat the content-oriented
requests as process-oriented and say: "No, we can't undelete it because
the AfD was legit."

This is not good, DRV has to be able to handle both types of requests
sensibly.

Regards,
Haukur