[WikiEN-l] Banality threshold

[Sage Ross]

On 9/29/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
>
> The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
>
> My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
>
> What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
>

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.

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)