I am interested to see what the expert community thinks about this scenario:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Knapp%27s_Restaurant&diff...
Relatively new user "Ipthief" (about 20 seemingly clueful edits between July 17 and October 25) decided that there ought to be an article in Wikipedia about the Bill Knapp's restaurant chain (now closed, but a verifiable "institution" in Michigan for decades -- and 900+ Google hits). So, Ipthief set out at 2:36 PM, writing the first forms of a stubby article.
Two minutes later, user "Diez2" lands on the page, throws up a {{db-bio}} on the page. In the next moment, Diez2 informs Ipthief's Talk page of the advice, "If you can indicate why Bill Knapp's Restaurant is really notable, you can contest the tagging."
Is it too much to expect someone to either (a) wait a little longer than 2 minutes before calling for a speedy delete, or (b) look up something on Google to get some gauge of notability . . . before making such an adversarial, deletionist move? Or, is everyone on such a red-alert for spam (even of companies that are now bankrupt and out of operation), that this will be the standard procedure?
On 10/27/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Or, is everyone on such a red-alert for spam (even of companies that are now bankrupt and out of operation), that this will be the standard procedure?
Because of the way recentchanges and special:newpages work most tagging is necessarily concentrated on the most recent additions.
Perhaps someday we will have more powerful workflow automation which allows us to tell if a change has been audited other than by means of how recent it is... but until then.
And besides, quick action often gives the contributor a chance to respond and provide the missing and needed information. Had we not noticed the page for another day it's quite possible that the original contributor would be logged off, not to notice the proposed deletion or the talk page notice for weeks, and by then the page would already have been deleted.
You call this adversarial, but to me it just appears to be prudence.
And seriously, a bankrupt and out of business company? Is it such a tall order to ask people to assert notability?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
And seriously, a bankrupt and out of business company? Is it such a tall order to ask people to assert notability?
For newbies who don't understand our somewhat complex, inconsistent, and occasionally bizarre notability guidelines?
Yes.
-Jeff
On 10/27/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
And seriously, a bankrupt and out of business company? Is it such a tall order to ask people to assert notability?
For newbies who don't understand our somewhat complex, inconsistent, and occasionally bizarre notability guidelines?
Yes.
So.. we shouldn't *ask* newbies to do things?
How the heck are they ever to learn?
On Oct 27, 2006, at 10:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 10/27/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
And seriously, a bankrupt and out of business company? Is it such a tall order to ask people to assert notability?
For newbies who don't understand our somewhat complex, inconsistent, and occasionally bizarre notability guidelines?
Yes.
So.. we shouldn't *ask* newbies to do things?
How the heck are they ever to learn?
Tagging an article with {{delete}} isn't asking- it's telling a user to fuck off.
Going to their talk page, asking, and waiting a day is asking them to do things. Slapping an article with {{delete}} is being aggressive, hostile, and bitey.
-Phil
On 10/27/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Tagging an article with {{delete}} isn't asking- it's telling a user to fuck off.
Going to their talk page, asking, and waiting a day is asking them to do things. Slapping an article with {{delete}} is being aggressive, hostile, and bitey.
The person in question did go to the users talk page.
You're ascribing a lot of emotions (aggressive, hostile, and bitey) to someone you've never spoken with.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 10/27/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
And seriously, a bankrupt and out of business company? Is it such a tall order to ask people to assert notability?
For newbies who don't understand our somewhat complex, inconsistent, and occasionally bizarre notability guidelines?
Yes.
So.. we shouldn't *ask* newbies to do things?
How the heck are they ever to learn?
By entering into a respectful dialogue.
Ec
On 10/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
By entering into a respectful dialogue.
Right.. Like leaving a message on their talk page... Which is what was done in this case.
In the majority of cases where a new user has dropped a new article on our lap they don't hang around long enough to answer such notes.
If the user who discovered the suspect article doesn't place some sort of tag on it at the time he finds it, then there will be nothing to cause the article to get cleaned up later unless he logs it in some sort of personal todo system, and nothing to stop a half dozen other users from wasting their time on it while it's still on the first few pages of special:newpages. This point takes me back to my initial comment on workflow automation.
You might argue that the note that was left could have been more helpful, but because of our limited workflow automation we needed to put some kind of deletion notice on the article... and it wouldn't be respectful at all to ping the author with questions but fail to mention that the page was tagged for eventual deletion.
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Is it too much to expect someone to either (a) wait a little longer than 2 minutes before calling for a speedy delete, or (b) look up something on Google to get some gauge of notability . . . before making such an adversarial, deletionist move? Or, is everyone on such a red-alert for spam (even of companies that are now bankrupt and out of operation), that this will be the standard procedure?
I'm finding the new spam speedy, is it G11 or G12, really contentious. I can't work what is meant by blatant advertising. Some people seem to be taking the view that it's simply having an article on a company.
On 10/28/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I'm finding the new spam speedy, is it G11 or G12, really contentious. I can't work what is meant by blatant advertising. Some people seem to be taking the view that it's simply having an article on a company.
Have people forgotten PROD? It's a relatively non-confrontational, simple method to allow many pages to get deleted with a minimum of fuss. Speedy deletion is only for a limited number of pages.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 10/28/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I'm finding the new spam speedy, is it G11 or G12, really contentious. I can't work what is meant by blatant advertising. Some people seem to be taking the view that it's simply having an article on a company.
Have people forgotten PROD? It's a relatively non-confrontational, simple method to allow many pages to get deleted with a minimum of fuss. Speedy deletion is only for a limited number of pages.
I do use prod. The trouble is, I can't work out what this speedy is getting at. Some of the articles being speedied I would not even prod, they're just ordinary stubs. I get that we don't want to be abused, but there seems to be a grey area on the line of a resource of the sum of all human knowledge and obvious spam. Some of these speedy tags are becoming a little too subjective.
Hey, i didn't know lack of notability was valid CSD.
On 10/27/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I am interested to see what the expert community thinks about this scenario:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Knapp%27s_Restaurant&diff...
Relatively new user "Ipthief" (about 20 seemingly clueful edits between July 17 and October 25) decided that there ought to be an article in Wikipedia about the Bill Knapp's restaurant chain (now closed, but a verifiable "institution" in Michigan for decades -- and 900+ Google hits). So, Ipthief set out at 2:36 PM, writing the first forms of a stubby article.
Two minutes later, user "Diez2" lands on the page, throws up a {{db-bio}} on the page. In the next moment, Diez2 informs Ipthief's Talk page of the advice, "If you can indicate why Bill Knapp's Restaurant is really notable, you can contest the tagging."
Is it too much to expect someone to either (a) wait a little longer than 2 minutes before calling for a speedy delete, or (b) look up something on Google to get some gauge of notability . . . before making such an adversarial, deletionist move? Or, is everyone on such a red-alert for spam (even of companies that are now bankrupt and out of operation), that this will be the standard procedure?
-- Gregory Kohs _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/31/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, i didn't know lack of notability was valid CSD.
A7
Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. Note: Avoid the word "vanity" in deletion summaries since it may be insulting.
so.. even if there's a splinter of proff of notability, then it goes to AFD, right?
On 10/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, i didn't know lack of notability was valid CSD.
A7
Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. Note: Avoid the word "vanity" in deletion summaries since it may be insulting.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/2/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
so.. even if there's a splinter of proff of notability, then it goes to AFD, right?
Sure, in theory. The actual criteria is an /assertion/ of notability, which is a different thing, largely because having individual admins judge a nebulous and vague concept like "notability" is bound to cause problems and confusion. To my mind, most things are either obviously insignificant or obviously important. The gray area is why we have AFD ... not that it works terribly well, mind you.
~~Sean