Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Otago University Debating Society

Wider issues raised by AfDs like this one
I very rarely join in deletion debates, and I'm afraid this one has reminded me of all the reasons why I stay away: Am I the only one here who finds this a deplorable situation? - Pointillist (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A culture of recentism, in particular the assumption that if sources can't be found on the Internet, they don't exist.
 * The presence of regular participants—some of whom have virtually no track record in creating article or finding sources—and an atmosphere of ill-will between them based on their previous interactions on XfD pages.
 * A self-serving interpretation of "canvassing" that prevents potentially interested editors from being notified of the debate and invited to find sources. The Joynt Challenge Scroll AfD, for example, would clearly have benefitted from "canvassing" contributors from all the NZ universities who used to compete for this prize.
 * Pointillist, I also find it troubling; its the primary reason I became an active editor on wikipedia about a year ago, because I saw worthwhile content is now being deleted. Since 2005, we have gone from a culture where lots of fluff was tolerated (and didn't harm the "serious" articles anyway--nothing legitimate really got on the radar for deletion except in cases of grave error), to where many legitimate article subjects get deleted too rashly.  (To see an example of this culture shift, scroll to the end of my blogpost on Smurf Communism to see how an admittedly silly article went from an absolute keeper in 2005 to a must-delete in 2007.)  The AfD process is, by its nature, a system of canvassing votes for deletion.  Those who favor deletion are, I think, trying to do what they think is best for the project, but the AfD system seems to draw in many editors who are more prone to delete than create.--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The process is indeed quite broken. My impression is that the trouble arises because much of it is driven by the activities of the New Page Patrol.  These editors develop a negative attitude from their experience of dealing with a torrent of poor first drafts.  The drafts are poor because the typical new editor is presented with a weak template for a new article and our markup language requires considerable experience to do well.  The CSD process and tools like Twinkle encourage a box-ticking, bureaucratic approach to new articles from which understanding and researching the topic are absent.  The best remedy would be a better process for submitting new articles.  The Foundation have tried to revise the interface with an Article Wizard and such but it is not enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for such thoughtful replies. I'm just packing for a vacation so I'll respond on my return. - Pointillist (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)