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

[Philip Sandifer]

Actually, in this case the speedy claim was "person never existed."

Which is a terrible deletion reason, especially considering that the  
person did exist. Furthermore, the article was tagged within fifteen  
minutes of its creation.

We really, really need to put a "And the article is more than 24  
hours old" rule for several of the CSD criteria - everything but  
copyvio and patent nonsense, basically. This would both prevent the  
atrocity of people who delete without checking the history to see if  
it's just the current version that's busted, and it would give people  
who make their articles in a series of smaller edits (Something many  
people do) a chance to actually write the article before the deleting  
angels swoop in.

-Phil

On Nov 20, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Brown, Darin wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l