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