Oh yes, you're right. Speedy deletion would be required on some case.
-- Alvaro On 13-01-2009, at 14:18, "Martijn Hoekstra" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> w > rote: >> 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
