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

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

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.

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

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

If someone is searching for an article on the subject, they aren't going to think that, are they?

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

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.

You know, turning CSD A7 into a PROD doesn't sound like a bad idea...

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:48:48 -0500, "James Hare" <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

James Hare wrote: 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

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 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(a)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.

George Herbert wrote: 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...

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.

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 wrote: Please, stop. No, seriously, stop. If you're speedying articles that don't meet the criteria, stop.

> 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

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).

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 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.