It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is grossly overused by many people, including me. Most editors simply use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it seems somewhat dishonest. Would it not be better, therefore, either to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion for people to use instead? I would suggest that a possibly way of determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing (>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the article, it can be speedied. The only real disadvantage I see in this is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
What do people think?
It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is grossly overused by many people, including me. Most editors simply use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it seems somewhat dishonest. Would it not be better, therefore, either to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion for people to use instead? I would suggest that a possibly way of determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing (>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the article, it can be speedied. The only real disadvantage I see in this is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
What do people think?
I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your idea would be more complicated for no good reason.
Not to mention it could easily get gamed -- imagine if there's five people interested in some band from Deluth no one cares about, except those five people that manage to get the article saved (at least from speedy deletion). System gamed.
We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look good. Assume good faith across the board.
On 12/26/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is grossly overused by many people, including me. Most editors simply use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it seems somewhat dishonest. Would it not be better, therefore, either to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion for people to use instead? I would suggest that a possibly way of determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing (>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the article, it can be speedied. The only real disadvantage I see in this is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
What do people think?
I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your idea would be more complicated for no good reason. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
*stomp*, *stomp*, *stomp*
I see what you mean, but my idea does have the advantage that it, unlike a PROD, doesn't take 5 days, and doesn't necessarily allow the creator to waste everybody's time with an AfD. Just to clarify, my proposal is to delete first, undelete to userspace and get suppord from good-standing editors later.
To James: OK, so imagine the system gets gamed. There's an AfD. Not a huge problem. In any case, AfD is probably the right result if five experienced editors support keeping.
On 26/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention it could easily get gamed -- imagine if there's five people interested in some band from Deluth no one cares about, except those five people that manage to get the article saved (at least from speedy deletion). System gamed.
We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look good. Assume good faith across the board.
On 12/26/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that CSD A7 (the no assertion of notability one) is grossly overused by many people, including me. Most editors simply use it as though it read "blatantly non-notable", and while this is probably a good thing (it prevents a vast waste of time at AfD), it seems somewhat dishonest. Would it not be better, therefore, either to alter it so that it did read like that, or to add another criterion for people to use instead? I would suggest that a possibly way of determining "gross non-notability" would be to say that if the creator is unable to pursuade, say, four or five editors in good standing (>50-100 edits, no blocks in the last week or so) to vouch for the article, it can be speedied. The only real disadvantage I see in this is that it could create a somewhat cliqueish appearance to new users.
What do people think?
I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your idea would be more complicated for no good reason. _______________________________________________ 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
Just to clarify, my proposal is to delete first, undelete to userspace and get suppord from good-standing editors later.
Thanks for the clarification, I had misunderstood that (I thought it odd that you hadn't specified a time to wait for the support, now it makes sense). In that case, I strongly oppose - a "delete first, ask questions later" approach sounds like it's asking for trouble to me.
But that's pretty much what we've already got, since, as I've shown, most people use CSD A7 to mean "blatantly non-notable". I just want to bring it out into the open.
David
On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Just to clarify, my proposal is to delete first, undelete to userspace and get suppord from good-standing editors later.
Thanks for the clarification, I had misunderstood that (I thought it odd that you hadn't specified a time to wait for the support, now it makes sense). In that case, I strongly oppose - a "delete first, ask questions later" approach sounds like it's asking for trouble to me. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But that's pretty much what we've already got, since, as I've shown, most people use CSD A7 to mean "blatantly non-notable". I just want to bring it out into the open.
People adding speedy tags do, but do the admins going through CSD read it that way? I don't know how often A7 tags are removed, as far as I know, there isn't an easy way to tell. I would hope admins know better than to delete an article under A7 that asserts notability.
If you think they deserve to the deleted speedily, what do you suggest the requirement becomes? There needs to be a firm rule, anything subjective and it won't work, as non-admins can't review deletion decisions.
Tricky...
This is a bit radical, but maybe deleting admins in these cases could copy the content onto the article talk pages, and tag them so that they can be deleted by a bot a couple days later. This would allow everyone to review the decisions, but I'm not sure how much extra hassle this would create for deleting admins...
David
On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But that's pretty much what we've already got, since, as I've shown, most people use CSD A7 to mean "blatantly non-notable". I just want to bring it out into the open.
People adding speedy tags do, but do the admins going through CSD read it that way? I don't know how often A7 tags are removed, as far as I know, there isn't an easy way to tell. I would hope admins know better than to delete an article under A7 that asserts notability. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This is a bit radical, but maybe deleting admins in these cases could copy the content onto the article talk pages, and tag them so that they can be deleted by a bot a couple days later. This would allow everyone to review the decisions, but I'm not sure how much extra hassle this would create for deleting admins...
If you're having the article on the talk page for a few days for review, why not have it on the article page for a few days for review (ie. PROD it)?
If you're having the article on the talk page for a few days for review, why not have it on the article page for a few days for review (ie. PROD it)?
Because if it's on the talk page, readers won't come to it through the search box and think, "Oh, look how stupid this encyclopedia is, they have an article on a ridiculous subject like that". Isn't that basically why we delete articles?
David
On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
This is a bit radical, but maybe deleting admins in these cases could copy the content onto the article talk pages, and tag them so that they can be deleted by a bot a couple days later. This would allow everyone to review the decisions, but I'm not sure how much extra hassle this would create for deleting admins...
If you're having the article on the talk page for a few days for review, why not have it on the article page for a few days for review (ie. PROD it)? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Because if it's on the talk page, readers won't come to it through the search box and think, "Oh, look how stupid this encyclopedia is, they have an article on a ridiculous subject like that". Isn't that basically why we delete articles?
If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't going to think that, are they?
As for why we delete non-notable articles - it's a controversial subject. There are plenty of people that think we shouldn't. My main reason for supporting such deletions are based around consistancy - if we have an article on one band that's never released anything, we should have articles on every band that's never released anything, otherwise we have systematic bias. I don't think we delete them to stop people reading them and thinking badly of us - if they've found the article, they are probably interested in the subject.
If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't going to think that, are they?
*bangs head against wall* Stupid David! Should have thought of that.
To be honest, I think that one of the main reasons is that articles on non-notable subjects are usually badly written/unverified...
David
On 26/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Because if it's on the talk page, readers won't come to it through the search box and think, "Oh, look how stupid this encyclopedia is, they have an article on a ridiculous subject like that". Isn't that basically why we delete articles?
If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't going to think that, are they?
As for why we delete non-notable articles - it's a controversial subject. There are plenty of people that think we shouldn't. My main reason for supporting such deletions are based around consistancy - if we have an article on one band that's never released anything, we should have articles on every band that's never released anything, otherwise we have systematic bias. I don't think we delete them to stop people reading them and thinking badly of us - if they've found the article, they are probably interested in the subject. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Mestel wrote:
If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't going to think that, are they?
*bangs head against wall* Stupid David! Should have thought of that.
To be honest, I think that one of the main reasons is that articles on non-notable subjects are usually badly written/unverified...
If an article has poor writing style that can be fixed without deletion. If the information is unverified would it not be better to say that outright instead of enterring the dark subjective hole of notability?
Ec
James Hare wrote:
We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look good. Assume good faith across the board.
I've long-advocated just turning CSD A7 into a prod. Prod's obviously working on the ones that are speedy candidates but get prodded instead...
-Jeff
You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...
On 12/26/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Hare wrote:
We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite
assertion. If
the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us
look
good. Assume good faith across the board.
I've long-advocated just turning CSD A7 into a prod. Prod's obviously working on the ones that are speedy candidates but get prodded instead...
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@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. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Hare wrote:
You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...
It would end a LOT of Wikidrama. It would force more eyes onto things, and end up making it less bureaucratic by not wasting time on obviously deletable stuff on DRV.
I still also kind of wish that PROD was set up to keep the author from removing it, which would make such a shift (I'd love to see G11 under PROD too, but A7 makes more logical sense), but I'm looking at WP:PRODSUM right now, and it looks like 7 of the first 10 non-mast PRODs could, theoretically, be deleted under A7. Yet they sat for 5 days without a problem.
-Jeff
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:48:48 -0500, "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...
Visit CAT:CSD some time and see how many of the A7 articles you think we'd be best leaving around for a week before deleting. Feel free to change the A7s to PRODs for those articles. Don't forget to watchlist for removal of the PROD notice.
There is no rule saying that only admins can visit that category.
Guy (JzG)
Looking at that category now, I see a number nominated under CSD A7 which do assert notability:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafe_tequila asserts notability (although incorrectly) through mention of awards won. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Creek_Sports_Camp "have made Canyon Creek among the top campsites on the West Coast" * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cezar_kurti "is a well known translator" * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Visual_Arts_Center "DVAC is an important part of the Dayton culture community"
All deserve to be deleted speedily. All assert notability.
David
On 26/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:48:48 -0500, "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...
Visit CAT:CSD some time and see how many of the A7 articles you think we'd be best leaving around for a week before deleting. Feel free to change the A7s to PRODs for those articles. Don't forget to watchlist for removal of the PROD notice.
There is no rule saying that only admins can visit that category.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
All deserve to be deleted speedily. All assert notability.
I've just gone through and removed the speedy tags. If you think they should be deleted, feel free to PROD them.
If you think they deserve to the deleted speedily, what do you suggest the requirement becomes? There needs to be a firm rule, anything subjective and it won't work, as non-admins can't review deletion decisions.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
James Hare wrote:
We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look good. Assume good faith across the board.
I've long-advocated just turning CSD A7 into a prod. Prod's obviously working on the ones that are speedy candidates but get prodded instead...
-Jeff
By and large, yes. Were it not for the need to keep complete nonsense and vandalism out, one could almost do away with speedy deletions altogether. Of course if that happened, an equally complex set of guidelines for closing PRODs would quickly be formulated.
I do recall one time that an article was speedy tagged, the speedy tag was changed to a PROD, the prod was contested, and the resulting AfD was closed early with a consensus to speedy delete. I suppose it could have been worse; at least nobody started a DRV...
-Gurch
On 12/26/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention it could easily get gamed -- imagine if there's five people interested in some band from Deluth no one cares about, except those five people that manage to get the article saved (at least from speedy deletion). System gamed.
We should do what we already do -- speedy delete those that fail to even assert notability, and PROD those that are non-notable despite assertion. If the PROD is removed, then AFD is necessary simply because it makes us look good. Assume good faith across the board.
I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal being stated. That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive way, but we should still get rid of it.
Mgm
I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal being stated. That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive way, but we should still get rid of it.
The burden of proof is on the person wanting it deleted, not on the person wanting it kept. The entire principle of PROD is that only completely uncontroversial articles should be deleted without discussion - if someone has removed the PROD, for whatever reason, the deletion is controversial, and should be discussed fully.
The problem with prodding new pages is if the prod is removed by the creator, or anyone else who is more interested in showcasing their awesome band or webcomic than in creating an encyclopedia. Prod would be essentially meaningless if the broadest conception of "controversial" were used; almost every article was created by someone who wanted it on Wikipedia and opposes its removal. Changing A7 to prod would mean sending hundreds of additional articles to AfD a week, where they will be deleted almost unanimously.
On 12/26/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal
being
stated. That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive
way,
but we should still get rid of it.
The burden of proof is on the person wanting it deleted, not on the person wanting it kept. The entire principle of PROD is that only completely uncontroversial articles should be deleted without discussion - if someone has removed the PROD, for whatever reason, the deletion is controversial, and should be discussed fully. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/27/06, Christopher Hagar cmhagar@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with prodding new pages is if the prod is removed by the creator, or anyone else who is more interested in showcasing their awesome band or webcomic than in creating an encyclopedia. Prod would be essentially meaningless if the broadest conception of "controversial" were used; almost every article was created by someone who wanted it on Wikipedia and opposes its removal. Changing A7 to prod would mean sending hundreds of additional articles to AfD a week, where they will be deleted almost unanimously.
On 12/26/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal
being
stated. That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive
way,
but we should still get rid of it.
The burden of proof is on the person wanting it deleted, not on the person wanting it kept. The entire principle of PROD is that only completely uncontroversial articles should be deleted without discussion - if someone has removed the PROD, for whatever reason, the deletion is controversial, and should be discussed fully.
I see people claiming this, but the fact is that the majority of PROD nominations go uncontested and result in a deletion.
PROD is working. So is A7, but PROD seems to be far less controversial...
George Herbert wrote:
I see people claiming this, but the fact is that the majority of PROD nominations go uncontested and result in a deletion.
PROD is working. So is A7, but PROD seems to be far less controversial...
Call me cynical if you like, but I rather suspect the main reason for this is that the waiting period is short enough that most "drive-by" article creators don't even notice the PROD until it's over and the article is gone. So, in that respect, there's little difference between PROD and just speedy deleting the article outright. (Other differences do exist, and are quite significant, of course.)
Then again, maybe I should just be happy that it does work. Never look a gift horse in the mouth, and all that...
On 12/28/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
I see people claiming this, but the fact is that the majority of PROD nominations go uncontested and result in a deletion.
PROD is working. So is A7, but PROD seems to be far less controversial...
Call me cynical if you like, but I rather suspect the main reason for this is that the waiting period is short enough that most "drive-by" article creators don't even notice the PROD until it's over and the article is gone. So, in that respect, there's little difference between PROD and just speedy deleting the article outright. (Other differences do exist, and are quite significant, of course.)
Then again, maybe I should just be happy that it does work. Never look a gift horse in the mouth, and all that...
Yeah. I can think of all sorts of ways for aggressive bad people to muck with WP within our policies, but PROD "just works" well enough, it seems.
A lot of our stuff would break in the face of determined hostile action. PROD included, under current rules. So far, so good, though.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I see PRODs get removed too often without any reason for the removal being stated. That's behavior that should be stomped out somehow. Not in a punitive way, but we should still get rid of it.
The burden of proof is on the person wanting it deleted, not on the person wanting it kept. The entire principle of PROD is that only completely uncontroversial articles should be deleted without discussion - if someone has removed the PROD, for whatever reason, the deletion is controversial, and should be discussed fully.
Of course, the fact that someone created the article in the first place means that its deletion is, in _some_ sense, controversial (excluding any articles created by mistake, but for those we already have {{db-author}}). So interpreting the uncontroversiality requirement that strictly may not be very productive.
More to the point, one could argue that the important words in your comment are "should be discussed fully", and that anyone demanding that an action be discussed first should at least be willing to actually discuss it. Removing a {{prod}} tag without giving a reason could be seen as saying "I have an objection, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, so I'll just let you spend five days guessing."
Of course, one should assume good faith (unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary), and in particular should try to contact the person who removed the tag and ask them to explain _why_ they felt the article should not be deleted. This does not mean we shouldn't also strongly encourage editors to provide a reason in the first place.
On 27/12/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
More to the point, one could argue that the important words in your comment are "should be discussed fully", and that anyone demanding that an action be discussed first should at least be willing to actually discuss it. Removing a {{prod}} tag without giving a reason could be seen as saying "I have an objection, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, so I'll just let you spend five days guessing." Of course, one should assume good faith (unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary), and in particular should try to contact the person who removed the tag and ask them to explain _why_ they felt the article should not be deleted. This does not mean we shouldn't also strongly encourage editors to provide a reason in the first place.
No, just removing it is supposed to be enough. Don't complicate it.
- d.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I agree, A7 is often misused. I think cases of articles that assert an obviously invalid reason for notability should go through PROD. Your idea would be more complicated for no good reason.
Though I probably go beyond the boundaries of CSD A7 in cases where, really, I think it merits it, I do try to take the criterion literally as far as possible, and PROD things that contain an assertion of notability even if it isn't an acceptable one.
Having the article sit there doing nothing for five days isn't too bad. Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have to make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown to when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really worth it. On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.
-Gurch
Having the article sit there doing nothing for five days isn't too bad.
Exactly.
Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have to make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown to when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really worth it.
Yeah, that is annoying... maybe PRODs should have to go through an extra step to be removed: One person adds a PROD tag, another changes it to a DISPUTED-PROD tag, another can then remove the tag, after which it has to go through AfD to be deleted. Admins can delete DISPUTED-PRODs after the usual 5 days (or maybe 2 days after the dispute is added if it is disputed in the last 2 days of the 5 day period). Basically, this means 2 people have to agree in order for a PROD to be removed (yes, this can be got around with sockpuppets, but there isn't much we can do about that that we don't do already).
On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.
All admins should follow the same set of rules - there shouldn't be a lottery involved in CSD, an article should be either deleted or kept regardless of who is patrolling CSD at the time.
Gurch wrote:
Though I probably go beyond the boundaries of CSD A7 in cases where, really, I think it merits it, I do try to take the criterion literally as far as possible, and PROD things that contain an assertion of notability even if it isn't an acceptable one.
Please, stop. No, seriously, stop. If you're speedying articles that don't meet the criteria, stop.
Having the article sit there doing nothing for five days isn't too bad. Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have to make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown to when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really worth it.
Discussion isn't bad. Take a look at PRODSUM in any regard: items that could be speedied are not having their prods removed, and if it becomes an issue, we can try and change prod a bit.
On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.
I'd like to see a good faith effort by admins to not speedy articles with prod on them in the cases of notability, but I may be asking a lot. That's one of the most frustating things I see when doing a PRODSUM checkup, redlinks because people couldn't bother to wait.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Gurch wrote:
Though I probably go beyond the boundaries of CSD A7 in cases where, really, I think it merits it, I do try to take the criterion literally as far as possible, and PROD things that contain an assertion of notability even if it isn't an acceptable one.
Please, stop. No, seriously, stop. If you're speedying articles that don't meet the criteria, stop.
Fair enough, since you asked so nicely. I should emphasize, though, that many other people will bend the rules of speedy deletions a lot further than I have done. You may want to have a word with them; they don't all read this list. Not to mention the people that clear out PRODs, as the size of their task would increase significantly. Readers, too, should prepare for a small but not insignificant decline in the average quality of our articles.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sometimes, though, the prod tag gets removed, at which point I have to make a procedural listing at AfD and reset the five-day countdown to when the article can go, which does make me wonder if it's really
worth it.
Yeah, that is annoying... maybe PRODs should have to go through an extra step to be removed: One person adds a PROD tag, another changes it to a DISPUTED-PROD tag, another can then remove the tag, after which it has to go through AfD to be deleted. Admins can delete DISPUTED-PRODs after the usual 5 days (or maybe 2 days after the dispute is added if it is disputed in the last 2 days of the 5 day period). Basically, this means 2 people have to agree in order for a PROD to be removed (yes, this can be got around with sockpuppets, but there isn't much we can do about that that we don't do already).
It's nice to see new ideas being thrown around, but I'm not sure this is the way to go. Proposed deletion was deliberately designed to be simple at a time when AfD was being used for things that didn't merit that much complexity. Instruction creep, perhaps; I'm not a great fan of that term, though.
Gurch wrote:
Fair enough, since you asked so nicely. I should emphasize, though, that many other people will bend the rules of speedy deletions a lot further than I have done.
I'm currently in a bit of a brouhaha with one of them in particular.
You may want to have a word with them; they don't all read this list. Not to mention the people that clear out PRODs, as the size of their task would increase significantly.
That's fine. I'd much rather the people doing speedies work on prods anyway. d;-)
Readers, too, should prepare for a small but not insignificant decline in the average quality of our articles.
I don't agree with that. As it stands, I think we're deleting too much worthwhile stuff. That's a sea change that would need to be initiated far beyond the scope of A7, and is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
On 12/26/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I don't agree with that. As it stands, I think we're deleting too much worthwhile stuff. That's a sea change that would need to be initiated far beyond the scope of A7, and is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
I personally agree as well. In most cases, if something is sufficiently sourced, I don't feel it should be deleted. Most crap articles that shouldn't stick around won't be sourced.
I notice that many users, including long-established ones, stick speedy tags on articles which are very questionable speedies.
-Matt
Gurch wrote:
On the other hand, quite a few get speedied by another administrator shortly after I've PRODded them -- in which case I've wasted time and may as well just have disposed of it myself. So perhaps for that reason alone we should either change A7 or agree to stick to it; I don't know.
I wonder how often the speedy happens _immediately_ after the prod is added. In other words, two users are looking at the article. One adds prod, the other decides for speedy delete. The delete ends up happening after the prod is added, but without the knowledge of the deleting admin.
Just wondering...
-Rich
Rich Holton wrote:
I wonder how often the speedy happens _immediately_ after the prod is added. In other words, two users are looking at the article. One adds prod, the other decides for speedy delete. The delete ends up happening after the prod is added, but without the knowledge of the deleting admin.
Well, PRODSUM doesn't update immediately, and that's when I notice.
-Jeff