On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day geni,
Why? We've seen the cost of a failed RC patrol. If you want to put an article on wikipedia doing a minium of research yourself is not too much to ask.
Remember that we are talking about coming across articles that don't cite their sources. If you came across such an article on RC patrol, you would *not* immediately reach for AfD, and you should not be listing stuff on AfD without doing research (if nothing else, because then you couldn't write a good nom, and I've been hot on the issue of AfD nominations for a while now).
I'm not even talking about listing without research--that's sloppy but cannot result in an out-of-process deletion. I'm talking about RC patrollers deleting articles that contain, for instance, statements that imply notability, such as the recent deletion of an article that described its subject as a "prominent barrister and civil libertarian."
Instead of arguing about this, because I can see both sides of the argument, I'll present a somewhat simple feature that would remove much of the problem.
Let's add a feature to the software to automatically notify a user (easiest implementation would be to add a message on the talk page) when an article she started has been deleted. Then if the deletion was mistaken, it's trivial for the user to either rewrite it or get it undeleted (or it damn well should be, an inappropriate speedy is still a candidate for speedy undeletion, right?).
In fact, preferably we could add it whenever an article gets tagged for AFD, or with cleanup-verify, etc.
Anthony