[WikiEN-l] Re: Lauritsen speedy deletion??

[Brown, Darin]

Creidieki wrote:

>> [[John Lauritsen]] was recently nominated for speedy deletion by some
>> ignorant moron. SPEEDY deletion. Absolutely unbelievable. How many more
>> cases do we have to show??
>
>I assume you're making an argument against the "no claim of
>notability" speedy criterion?  The current article doesn't state
>notability; it mentions only profession.  Being an activist or
>journalist aren't notable enough to merit automatic inclusion.  So
>[[John Lauritsen]] seems to qualify.

You miss my point. Anyone *remotely* familiar with the topic or the subject
of the article (regardless of their opinions or which side of the debate
they fall on) knows that notability in this instance is trivial. Only people
completely ignorant of the subject would nominate it for speedy delete. Why
is "no claim of notability" a crietrion for speedy delete? Why should it
even be a criteron for deletion? There is difference between CLAIM OF
NOTABILITY in the article and ACTUAL NOTABILITY. In this case, anyone
familiar KNOWS the subject is notable, but just because the STUB fails to
provide evidence, this is considered enough for speedy delete or delete?
What about leaving a message on the original editor's talk page? What about
contacting people who know more and allowing a few days to get a response?
As it is now, such articles can be started by inexperienced users who aren't
aware of the esoteric lawyeristic discussions about AfD, and then the
articles deleted simply because they were unaware of those very esoteric
lawyeristic discussions. Then, when someone comes around to writing it
again, they'll probably say, "well, it was already speedy deleted earlier".
Well, no shit, you never bothered to look into it in the first place.

darin