[WikiEN-l] you have to improve upon it before tagging it for speedy deletion

[WereSpielChequers]

I'm quite active at speedy deletion and often decline overenthusiastic
tags, but I would disagree with making it compulsory to improve a good
faith article one tags for deletion (though I'd be happy with
something that encourages this).

Bad faith I take as attack pages, vandalism and hoaxes

But other stuff that merits speedy deletion ranges from
autobiographies to biographies of pet guinea pigs. I count myself as
quite inclusionist but I really don't see the point of trying to
improve everything before its deleted. And even though there is a
proposal on the strategy wiki to allow autobiographies
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:People_should_be_allowed_to_create_autobiographies
, I think most people would accept that very few household pets are
important or significant outside their own kennel, fishtank or stick
insect vivarium.

Where I do think we can improve things is in giving guidance to over
enthusiastic new page patrollers, and in insisting that authors be
informed. I agree it would be overkill to template someone 12 times in
an hour to tell them that not one member of their pub's football team
merited an article. But it does concern me at CSD when I spot that the
author of a good faith article has a redlinked talkpage.

I also think that many of our speedy tags and templates should be
rewritten to be less bitey and more welcoming.

WereSpielChequers

>
> Maybe we can make up a rule that says "Unless the page was obvisouly
> written in bad faith, you have to improve upon it before tagging it
> for speedy or prod deletion. Otherwise, your nomination will be
> rejected."
>
> Emily