On 11/12/06, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh they might. Problem is that we have no other deletion method that could cope if we removed A7 -- geni

On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: Authors remove prods. Then what? -- geni

well, make prods stricter. say prods cannot be removed by author or substantive contributor On 11/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- ST47 Editor, en.wikipedia

Still, there is a difference between non-encyclopedic content (PROD) and total crap (A7).

On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, geni wrote: I've long supported authors not being allowed to remove PRODs, as with CSDs. Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer(a)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 Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:22:30PM -0500, Phil Sandifer 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. 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. -- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, WikiNews, WikiBooks and Commons

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote: 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. 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. -- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, WikiNews, WikiBooks and Commons

On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: 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

Brian Salter-Duke wrote: 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. This I wholeheartedly agree with, and I may have proposed to a resounding silence at one point. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.

geni wrote: 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. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.3/531 - Release Date: 12/11/06

aye, them too On 11/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- ST47 Editor, en.wikipedia

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: