"John Lee" wrote
In all fairness, [[Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi]] in its original state was completely unsalvageable.
You don't think that the fact that the article's creator also that day edited [[Pakistan Muslim League (Q)]] and [[General Pervez Musharraf]] was any sort of clue that we might want the article?
Charles
Charles In the case of [[Chaudhry Ghulam Ahmed Zamurrad]],
though, there was a clear assertion of notability; at the very least, the onus is on the tagger and/or admin to do some basic Googling to see if there's a prima facie indication that this isn't patent nonsense.
These aren't the best examples to illustrate problems with the current deletion system, though. Every now and then when I check up on [[C:CSD]], I see articles like [[Maki Pulido]] tagged for speedying despite clear *examples* of notability within the article itself. This is systemic bias at its best; Pulido's article is especially interesting because after I removed the speedy tag, the tagger tagged it for PROD under the dubious reason that it had no sources (honestly, why is this a deletion criterion?) - something easily refutable by the fact that the article linked to the Philippine TV station's webpage on Pulido.
Not related to speedy deletion in particular, I still remember the time that someone insisted that the upper and lower houses of Malaysia's Parliament were insufficiently notable to be separate articles, and proposed merging them into [[Parliament of Malaysia]]. It's very clear to me that we have a substantial systemic bias when it comes to new content, although I'm reluctant to draw any wideranging and broad conclusions from this.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On Nov 7, 2007 3:27 AM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"John Lee" wrote
In all fairness, [[Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi]] in its original state was completely unsalvageable.
You don't think that the fact that the article's creator also that day edited [[Pakistan Muslim League (Q)]] and [[General Pervez Musharraf]] was any sort of clue that we might want the article?
Hindsight is 20-20; in the first place, how many of us would look up a contributing editor's edit history when considering an article's content? A bad article is a bad article, even if the author has written 20 FAs in the past. (Although in such a case, regardless of what you decide to do about the article, it is definitely a good idea to drop a note on the author's talk page just to make sure what happened.)
Usually I would be more concerned, but there wasn't a single piece of relevant encyclopedic information in the original article, and if the content is unsalvageable, there is no onus on anyone to write something, although if at all possible you probably should. Just because we can have the article does not mean we should have it now, if having it now means having a useless piece of tripe.
IMO it's very important to separate content from topic; saying "this content has no use to us" and "this subject is no use to us" are two very different things. This is what pisses me off sometimes, when people blindly cite previous speedyings/PRODs/AfDs which were based on content as a reason not to have an article on some topic.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
Hindsight is 20-20; in the first place, how many of us would look up a contributing editor's edit history when considering an article's content?
I must be weird. That's one factor I definitely look at while processing CAT:CSD, most especially when it's an A7 request. Ditto when I prod something. If I didn't do that, I'd feel like I could easily delete something with the potential to be a perfectly good article. Do other admins really not do that?
William
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:11:45 -0800, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I must be weird. That's one factor I definitely look at while processing CAT:CSD, most especially when it's an A7 request. Ditto when I prod something. If I didn't do that, I'd feel like I could easily delete something with the potential to be a perfectly good article. Do other admins really not do that?
I certainly do, unless it's a slam-dunk. But I am a heartless deletionist so probably delete some of them anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 7, 2007 3:14 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:11:45 -0800, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I must be weird. That's one factor I definitely look at while processing CAT:CSD, most especially when it's an A7 request. Ditto when I prod something. If I didn't do that, I'd feel like I could easily delete something with the potential to be a perfectly good article. Do other admins really not do that?
I certainly do, unless it's a slam-dunk. But I am a heartless deletionist so probably delete some of them anyway.
Exactly; in this case it was a slam-dunk from the content alone.
Johnleemk