Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]] and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines. That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus, then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our community would like to have some time left to write articles instead of making decissions on deleting articles.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García <[email protected]> wrote: > It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual > deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement' > where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where > people who know would improve them. > And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's > a general consensus. > > > -- > Alvaro > > On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so >>> reader >>> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the >>> mainstream, >>> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and >>> edit. >> >> >> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped >> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate >> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to >> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess. >> >> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and >> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until >> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the >> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed" >> article. >> >> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main >> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making >> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots >> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be? >> >> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it. >> >> --Noah-- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
