[WikiEN-l] Banality threshold

[Ray Saintonge]

Sage Ross wrote:
> In my experience, the biggest problems with notability deletions (both
> A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel
> blindsided by them.  The interface doesn't do an adequate job of
> making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all
> information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information
> on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why
> the topic is significant).
>
> In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss
> of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is
> unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability
> requirements).  That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at
> least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware
> of that ahead of time.  Our standards have changed so much over the
> last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed
> interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
I don't think that "heavier-handed" is appropriate.  Nevertheless it 
should be more informative, and relevant to what the newbie has actually 
done. If it's only that references are missing that should be a specific 
request, and providing those references would immediately void the AfD.  
Many of the AfD notices give the impression that they have been put 
there by an ignorant robot.

Ec