Sage Ross wrote:
In my experience, the biggest problems with notability
deletions (both
A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel
blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of
making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all
information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information
on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why
the topic is significant).
In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss
of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is
unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability
requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at
least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware
of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the
last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed
interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
I don't
think that "heavier-handed" is appropriate. Nevertheless it
should be more informative, and relevant to what the newbie has actually
done. If it's only that references are missing that should be a specific
request, and providing those references would immediately void the AfD.
Many of the AfD notices give the impression that they have been put
there by an ignorant robot.
Ec