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