Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2010/December

Category:Worst Actor Golden Raspberry Award winners

I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion.

As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of copying this to today's DRV log page, where it will get more attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have subsequently found that an appeal was already filed in this case and have copied my remarks there. However my remarks here were intended to point out, to the folks who are more regular practitioners of this deletion process, this particularly egregious example of the abuse of this process. It may have seemed rhetorical, but I sincerely hope the folks who enjoy spending their time searching for articles and categories to delete rethink this process. Trackinfo (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your questions don't make any sense to me. For several reasons. (1) It's not a vote, it's about strength of argument so throwing up numbers of votes doesn't make much sense. (2) It's stuff which is listed for deletio, so being suprised that they often do get deleted seems a rather naive viewpoint. By it's very nature people won't list them unless they think they don't meet the standards and therefore are likely to be delete, more experienced editors will have a better idea about what it/isn't within the communities standards so will likely be more accurate in their listings... It's then of no suprise that stuff that is listed for deletion regularly gets deleted. You need to consider the vast quantity of stuff out there which never gets listed for deletion in the first place... (3) The idea that there are a set of people called deletionist out there who will just opine to delete anything is ridiculous, sure people vary on the scale of what is/isn't suitable for inclusion as a general trend, but no guarantee that you can get x to come along an support your view on a given topic. (4) If it were being delayed to let some more people come along and opine for deletion, why bother? Why setup this mass conspiracy, if you can organsise that you have enough control to just delete the stuff without a debate? It is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I doubt there is anyone who enjoys spending time hunting stuff down for deletion, believe it or not most people actively involved in the project believe they are contributing to improving the encyclopedia in one way or another, I'm sure if you asked the people you are targeting they'd say, I wish these people would stop creating this stuff in the first place, make my life far more enjoyable... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)