I've been lloking at the usage of CSD A7, and it's out of control. People are using it to delete things with a claim of notability, or even argubly notable things! These shoud be debated! It's intended for things with *no* claim of notability, even a small claim is supposed to be debated, but it's abused and aused time after time todelete even clearly notbale things.
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses. Do you have an example of an article that was "unfairly" deleted? If it's used improperly, remove the tag. Either way, the admin won't delete it if it isn't really nn.
On 11/12/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
I've been lloking at the usage of CSD A7, and it's out of control. People are using it to delete things with a claim of notability, or even argubly notable things! These shoud be debated! It's intended for things with *no* claim of notability, even a small claim is supposed to be debated, but it's abused and aused time after time todelete even clearly notbale things. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/12/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses. Do you have an example of an article that was "unfairly" deleted? If it's used improperly, remove the tag. Either way, the admin won't delete it if it isn't really nn.
Oh they might. Problem is that we have no other deletion method that could cope if we removed A7
On 11/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses. Do you have an example of an article that was "unfairly" deleted? If it's used improperly, remove the tag. Either way, the admin won't delete it if it isn't really nn.
Oh they might. Problem is that we have no other deletion method that could cope if we removed A7
-- geni
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
Authors remove prods. Then what?
Exactly.
On 11/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
Authors remove prods. Then what?
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
well, make prods stricter. say prods cannot be removed by author or substantive contributor
On 11/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly.
On 11/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
Authors remove prods. Then what?
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/11/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
well, make prods stricter. say prods cannot be removed by author or substantive contributor
On 11/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly.
On 11/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
Authors remove prods. Then what?
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ST47 Editor, en.wikipedia _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My thoughts exactly, I was about to say the exact same suggestion.
Still, there is a difference between non-encyclopedic content (PROD) and total crap (A7).
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:08 PM, ikiroid wrote:
Still, there is a difference between non-encyclopedic content (PROD) and total crap (A7).
There's also a difference between total crap (A1 and G1-3, as well as G10) and "no assertion of notability," which is what A7 is supposed to be. If A7 has become total crap, A7 is nod performing as desired.
-Phil
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
Authors remove prods. Then what?
I've long supported authors not being allowed to remove PRODs, as with CSDs.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
exactly.
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
Authors remove prods. Then what?
I've long supported authors not being allowed to remove PRODs, as with CSDs.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:22:30PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this pretty much exactly the reason we introduced PROD? If we can get more admins to patrol it, and get people to use it effectively, it might very well serve as a replacement for A7
--Oskar
Authors remove prods. Then what?
I've long supported authors not being allowed to remove PRODs, as with CSDs.
I think this is a really bad idea. PRODs get put on articles that are very new, so few people have probably seen them or got them on their watchlist other than the author. It will just make many authors, who have their work deleted with no opportunity to debate it, to go ballistic. I have yet to have any of my creations PRODed, but if it happened I would want to argue why I created it.
I would also suggest that articles that are put to AfD should not be speedy deleted. Once thay are there give people a chance to see them and comment. Maybe only cut short the closure if there are 20 delete "votes" and no keep "votes". I often see a speedy closure of a AfD debate and are curious about what was in it.
Brian.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Nov 12, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
I think this is a really bad idea. PRODs get put on articles that are very new, so few people have probably seen them or got them on their watchlist other than the author. It will just make many authors, who have their work deleted with no opportunity to debate it, to go ballistic. I have yet to have any of my creations PRODed, but if it happened I would want to argue why I created it.
So use the {{hangon}} template on the PROD, and trust the admin who looks at it to make a judgment call. Or just ask nicely for it to be undeleted, and someone probably will. You only need to persuade one person in a five-day period to block a PROD.
I would also suggest that articles that are put to AfD should not be speedy deleted. Once thay are there give people a chance to see them and comment. Maybe only cut short the closure if there are 20 delete "votes" and no keep "votes". I often see a speedy closure of a AfD debate and are curious about what was in it.
The fulfillment of curiosity does not seem to me to outweigh the value of minimizing the number of AfD debates running at any given moment. Furthermore, it is often beneficial to establish a precedent of "kill it with a stick" instead of "debate it a whole lot."
-Phil
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
I think this is a really bad idea. PRODs get put on articles that are very new, so few people have probably seen them or got them on their watchlist other than the author. It will just make many authors, who have their work deleted with no opportunity to debate it, to go ballistic. I have yet to have any of my creations PRODed, but if it happened I would want to argue why I created it.
So use the {{hangon}} template on the PROD, and trust the admin who looks at it to make a judgment call. Or just ask nicely for it to be undeleted, and someone probably will. You only need to persuade one person in a five-day period to block a PROD.
OK, fair enough. If it happened to me I would ask the relevent Project, to which I would probably belong, to have a look at it.
I would also suggest that articles that are put to AfD should not be speedy deleted. Once thay are there give people a chance to see them and comment. Maybe only cut short the closure if there are 20 delete "votes" and no keep "votes". I often see a speedy closure of a AfD debate and are curious about what was in it.
The fulfillment of curiosity does not seem to me to outweigh the value of minimizing the number of AfD debates running at any given moment. Furthermore, it is often beneficial to establish a precedent of "kill it with a stick" instead of "debate it a whole lot."
Killing with a stick is top-down admin activity that prevents others from actually knowing what it was that was killed. I would prefer killing by consensus after the community has at least had an opportunity to see it. How much good stuff is going down the gurgler because of speedy deletion by admins who know nothing about what the article was about and that it needed help and TLC not killing?
Brian.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 40, Issue 40
On 11/12/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Killing with a stick is top-down admin activity that prevents others from actually knowing what it was that was killed.
They are free to ask.
I would prefer killing by consensus after the community has at least had an opportunity to see it.
I've deleted over 400 items to far this month. how much time were you planning to spend reviewing them?
How much good stuff is going down the gurgler because of speedy deletion by admins who know nothing about what the article was about and that it needed help and TLC not killing?
We have no shortage of articles in need of TLC. The cleanup backlogs seem to be as long as ever.
On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
Killing with a stick is top-down admin activity that prevents others from actually knowing what it was that was killed. I would prefer killing by consensus after the community has at least had an opportunity to see it. How much good stuff is going down the gurgler because of speedy deletion by admins who know nothing about what the article was about and that it needed help and TLC not killing?
The rush of crap in many areas (fanfic, corporate vanity, garage bands, and other such major problems ) far outstrips the capacity for AfD. None of these things survive AfD, and ought never even go there. Speedying off of AfD is a way of saying "Please do not clog AfD with this, just kill it." We don't have time to have high-quality debate about everything. In fact, we don't even have time to have high- quality debate about everything we're trying to have high-quality debate about.
-Phil
On 11/12/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote: [snip]
to see it. How much good stuff is going down the gurgler because of speedy deletion by admins who know nothing about what the article was about and that it needed help and TLC not killing?
It's not hard to argue that if it was so poor that you couldn't tell what it was that losing it wouldn't be much of a loss.
Wikipedia won't be done anytime soon, and quality takes time... No need to panic for or against deleting anything.
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
I think this is a really bad idea. PRODs get put on articles that are very new, so few people have probably seen them or got them on their watchlist other than the author. It will just make many authors, who have their work deleted with no opportunity to debate it, to go ballistic. I have yet to have any of my creations PRODed, but if it happened I would want to argue why I created it.
Speedies get looked at by, maybe, three people - the author the the article, the tagger, and the deleting admin. Prod's get possibly hundreds of eyes looking at them during prod patrols.
Perhaps not allowing the authors to remove prods might be useful, and a {{disputedprod}} tag would be very helpful to add to that.
I would also suggest that articles that are put to AfD should not be speedy deleted. Once thay are there give people a chance to see them and comment. Maybe only cut short the closure if there are 20 delete "votes" and no keep "votes". I often see a speedy closure of a AfD debate and are curious about what was in it.
This I wholeheartedly agree with, and I may have proposed to a resounding silence at one point.
-Jeff
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
I would also suggest that articles that are put to AfD should not be speedy deleted. Once thay are there give people a chance to see them and comment. Maybe only cut short the closure if there are 20 delete "votes" and no keep "votes". I often see a speedy closure of a AfD debate and are curious about what was in it.
This is a little too open to gaming for my liking. A lot of afds which are closed as speedy actually are speedies, it is usually that the nom is unaware of the fact. If we acted as you suggest we would allow a gaming of the system in which people could delay deletion through adding an afd tag to an article which desperately should be speedied. Some people simply want the article because of driving traffic or playing google.
geni wrote:
On 11/12/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses. Do you have an example of an article that was "unfairly" deleted? If it's used improperly, remove the tag. Either way, the admin won't delete it if it isn't really nn.
Oh they might. Problem is that we have no other deletion method that could cope if we removed A7
Speedy A1
Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub.
Now I'd argue that any article which doesn't explain why someone is significant fails to provide context. So writing "Blah are a garage band who will release their first album next year." Provides no context, and even if it is hugely puffed out to detail how they met and where they all went to school, it still fails to provide context. Now an article that provides context is "Blah are a garage band who will release their first album next year. The album will be produced by Steve Albini." There you've got a smidge of why they might be significant. Steve Albini has a Wikipedia article, so it may be debated that having an album produced by him may be significant enough.
Now this stuff is what A7 is also supposed to stop, but in the last few days, for example, I removed a speedy on a stub which noted the actress appears in Hollyoaks, a popular soap. It was speedied because apparently that doesn't assert notability. Now my rule of thumb is, if the article claims something that hasn't or couldn't have happened to an average person, namely me, and checks out, then I won't delete it under A7. Because I could have been in a band, I could have been an actor, but I haven't appeared in a poular soap, and I haven't had an album produced by Steve Albini.
A7 seems far too wide in it's subjectivity. When it was proposed it contained contextualising text, something along the lines of asserting that you are a baker or a butcher may be true, but it doesn't assert any importance. The article should assert why you are an important baker or butcher. This text was removed within the first few days of adoption as unnecessary, but I think it needs to be added back in to better contextualise what is supposed to be deleted here.
Don't forget those great garage bands!
On 11/12/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses.
aye, them too
On 11/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget those great garage bands!
On 11/12/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/11/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses. Do you have an example of an article that was "unfairly" deleted? If it's used improperly, remove the tag. Either way, the admin won't delete it if it isn't really nn.
-- ST47 Editor, en.wikipedia
And using it to delete an article about a student society at a University? OK, certainly a debatable article for inclusion in Wikipedia, but the mere fact of its attachment to a clearly notable University should be reason enough not to have a speedy deletion under A7.
Much more an AFD candidate if there is suggestion that it is too trivial to include on Wikipedia. For example (as opposite arguements to deletion in a debate), there are clearly student societies that should have a page; e.g. those that are historic, notable in themselves (not just because of the Uni), very relevant to notable people who were members (with it being relevant to their career/fame).
Now I have only given the example of a student society. With A7 as it is, there is clearly leeway for a host of articles to be deleted, whose deletion should instead be debated (even if it clearly establishes that said article can be deleted, or more probably, merged).
Zoney
If an article is deleted unfairly or out of process, is it more reasonable to amend fundamental policies, or would it be much simpler and easier to just take the matter to deletion review?
[[WP:DRV]] is happily available for such claims.
-Luna
On 11/20/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
pfft. we need a7, that's how we get rid of the myspace teens and the wanna-be-a-big-businesses. Do you have an example of an article that was "unfairly" deleted? If it's used improperly, remove the tag. Either way, the admin won't delete it if it isn't really nn.
-- ST47 Editor, en.wikipedia
And using it to delete an article about a student society at a University? OK, certainly a debatable article for inclusion in Wikipedia, but the mere fact of its attachment to a clearly notable University should be reason enough not to have a speedy deletion under A7.
Much more an AFD candidate if there is suggestion that it is too trivial to include on Wikipedia. For example (as opposite arguements to deletion in a debate), there are clearly student societies that should have a page; e.g. those that are historic, notable in themselves (not just because of the Uni), very relevant to notable people who were members (with it being relevant to their career/fame).
Now I have only given the example of a student society. With A7 as it is, there is clearly leeway for a host of articles to be deleted, whose deletion should instead be debated (even if it clearly establishes that said article can be deleted, or more probably, merged).
Zoney
-- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l