As for what I find, I only look on speedy or prod for things that I can quickly spot as possible without opening them: anything that sounds like real science, any corporate name I recognize, any research organization name I recognize, anything that looks like a non-UK/US author or scientist. These arent many, and I open 20 and get maybe 5 a day worth keeping. The problem is the personal names I do not recognize. If I have time to do them, I find another 5/day . Of these 10, usually 1 is absurd enough that I keep a record of it--the time someone tried to delete JISC (the major UK interuniversity consortium) or James Bonner, the very famous biologist, with 3 honorary degrees and a chair at an ivy. If people with other backgrounds looked, and every one was checked by an intelligent person, I think about 10% would be worth keeping or at least discussing in AfD.
I remove the tag, make a quick fix, say so, and try to notify the main or only editor. There's an automatic template for the purpose, and the person placing the delete is supposed to notify the author--they do about half the time. I add a line or two of suggestions beyond the template
For both speedy and prod, anyone other than the author can remove the tag, and say so with a reason on the edit summary and the talk page. That automatically stops the process. It is not necessary to be an admin.
The problems are that: 90% are 1-line autobios or bios of one's girlfriend or paragraphs naming the teachers in their elementary school; 5% are long meaningless autobio; 5% are worth thinking about.
As for automatic criteria, it isnt even safe to delete the 1-liners because some are a start for a person worth doing. I prefer intelligent humans. All US/UK villages even have long been entered from the census returns. Same could be done elsewhere.
I am not concerned about AfDs. Once something is there, it gets at least a few people. I haven't kept track, but I think most are rightly decided. There's about 100 discussions a day. Join those 1 or 2 you think you could really help. Learn the language that works, be realistic, avoid lost causes, and earn respect from the others.
I do not think structural change is hopeless; but we shoudn't wait for it. Direct action is the way. WP like most large organizations is run by a very small number of the members, but, unlike most, anyone with time to particpate can join in that number. --David G.
On 1/8/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Good. Thank you.
I'm outlining it for brevity:
- Bookmark and check [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] regularly.
Make it part of that hour or so per day when you're aimlessly clicking around the internet.
Even though you shouldn't have to, source to the point of compensation.
Call for back-up. Deletionists routinely summon their cheerleaders when
things aren't going their way. Do the same.
- Structural change -- fuggetaboutit.
-S
I am curious. About how many articles per day/week do you salvage from speedy del, David?
On 1/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, there is a very definite tendency for deletion of anything about a non UK/US person or institution, or an academic, or a classical musician, or someone or something not recent enough to have material on Google. The reason given is always "notability not asserted" and people are actually marking for deletion anything which does not literally countain the word "notability" in the first paragraph. This is worst in speedy, because there are only a few hours at most to review tthe listed items, and there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page of WP:CSD.
Ways to deal with it are well known, but I'm outlining it for clarity. More people must to make the very considerable effort of reviewing at least some of the deletions. For speedys, they're at [[Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion]]. Twice a day is not too often. Then there's [[Category:Proposed deletion]] every few days is enough, and similarly at AfD. You'll see me there-- I'm DGG.
AfD is the easy part, because if an article gets to AfD, there are enough people watching to speak up, and enough time to improve the article.
I'm not hopeful on structural change, because no structural change can stand up to people wantonly ignoring the meaning of the rules. But WP is after all a cooperatively edited project, and individual people joining in can make a difference. To return to the original posting, if a number of other people familiar with Indian material support worthy articles, it will work.
For individual articles, the way to do it is to put in a clearly sufficient number of citations. from printed works. (accompanied by English translations if necessary). I've found that specific citations from peer-reviewed journals do help, if they are at all pertinent. So do Ph.d. theses and even Masters theses.
The other specific tactic some like-minded people are using is to write the article on their user page, and invite comment individually from people likely to be active in AfD. Format does matter.
-- David Goodman
On 1/8/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
My are these slopes slippery this time of year. And me without my sled.
-S
On 1/8/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
That's a big hypothetical - if he had been born there, how much and
what
would he have written? Having somehting un-notable may not be a grave error, but having thousands of un-notable things clogs Wikipedia, makes fact-checking harder and opens the doors wide to usage of Wikipedia
for
advertisement.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l