QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 14th September 2009, 4:07pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
My mistake, it seemed like an ARS offshoot due to the enthusiastic presence of Ikip. And there's a similar mindset with the ARS introduction that reads: "All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? "
There seems to be an obvious flaw in this scheme - having placed all these pathetic mewling kittens in the incubator, who will be the one to pull the plug on their life support? It seems to me that there are a lot of people who believe that no kitten should be left behind, no matter how trivial, fancrufty, vanity-inflected, or fringey - I doubt they'll want to see even one tiny malformed kitten put out of its misery without a fight.
Yeah, Ikip is enthusiastic about it, and a self-declared inclusionist - I don't agree with any such -ism. My deletion log, on the other hand would probably make lots of people think I'm the complete opposite. It just seemed to me that AfD is rapidly descending into an ideological battleground (more so than before) and that such a middle-ground would be good to try to instil some calm and reason into it, or at least pull down the AfD workload a little bit to concentrate on the real borderline cases.
It's part of the thing I first briefly mentioned when I first posted here - a drive towards quality rather than quantity. Since the incubated articles are to leave the articlespace, and be noindexed, it has the effect of deletion whilst allowing some time for work and not biting the hand of potentially useful contributors. Given that, some time can be taken to work out how to delete articles out of the incubator when it becomes obvious they are beyond help.