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

[Bryan Derksen]

geni wrote:

>On 11/21/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>  
>
>>geni wrote:
>>These are have all essentially been marked as speedies already
>>("tagged") by the with-permission template.
>>    
>>
>
>Not always correctly
>  
>
And things that are tagged as candidates for speedy deletion aren't 
always correctly tagged, either. The whole point of "tag and bag" is to 
get a second person to take a second look at these things to _find out_ 
if they're incorrectly tagged. If you run across an article tagged for 
speedy deletion that you think shouldn't have been, remove the tag 
rather than just deleting it anyway. We're editors, not bots.

>>One should not be speedy deleting orphan images the first time you
>>notice that they're orphaned. What if they're only orphaned for that
>>particular moment because the article that normally uses them has been
>>vandalized, and is going to be fixed in a few hours to use them again?
>>Since image deletion is irreversable, extra care should be taken with
>>such things and something akin to the tag-and-bag approach should be
>>done regardless of whether it's a general policy. I'd suggest putting it
>>on IfD, in fact, to make sure it gets a few days' delay before the time
>>comes to wipe it.
>>    
>>
>
>Can IFD cope with 5000 images?
>  
>
Why not? If it can't, either feed them in more slowly in the first place 
or extend the IfD deadline to allow the backlog to build up without 
overwhelming processing.

If we're having to delete articles without taking adequate care because 
our current mechanisms aren't capable of providing adequate care, that's 
an argument for changing our current mechanisms rather than an argument 
that we _should_ be deleting articles that way.