[WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

[SCZenz]

My issue isn't with mistags by newpages patrollers; it's with misdeletions
by admins.  I think everyone should know that they can, and should, take the
time to review if something is speediable.  (Or, more importantly, whether
it's got the potential to be a good article or not.)

Although admin actions are reversible, this rarely happens with speedies
because they are quite difficult to review after deletion.  Is there some
way to sort the deletion logs to include only pages that had deletion
templates on them when they went?

SCZenz

On 5/23/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/21/06, SCZenz <sczenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds
> > to
> > > read them and evaluate the claims they make.  Isn't that bad?
> >
> > There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day.  I
> > think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands
> > of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it
> > would be nice if there were no bad calls.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> An Jimbo has said as well:
>
> "Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging
> that
> it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the
> defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there
> behind
> them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "
>
> Admin actions are reversable anyway
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>