[WikiEN-l] Deletion of unreferenced living person biographies

[David Goodman]

After a prod is declined, the reason being given for declining it may
convince the person placing the prod that there was no good reason for
deletion--what then would be the purpose of sending to AfD, if nobody
any longer wants the article deleted.

If I decline a prod  because I think that it will not be
uncontroversial, then I should send it to AfD so the   presumed
controversy can be settled. If I decline a prod because I think the
situation unclear, then i should send it to AfD to be clarified.

But if I decline a prod because there were better options under
WP:BEFORE, why should it go to AfD--the other options need to be
explored, and then the article sent to AfD only if they are considered
unsuitable.
Even moire, if I decline a prod because I consider the reason for
deletion invalid altogether, then if everyone involved  accepts what i
say, why should it go to AfD.

I patrol prod regularly, and decline a number of prods. More than half
the time, nobody takes them to AfD, & I assume it is because they
think my argument good enough or become convinced that the likelihood
of success in deleting it will be low.  I disagree with Phil that
people do not follow up prods--most of those placing prods are
familiar with the process, and know to check--I certainly realized
from the day I started placing them that I would need to keep track
when I place one, to see what happens to it--if a prod of mine is
declined, I do not automatically go to AfD, but consider what was
said. People unaware of how we do  deletion do not use prod, but send
articles unnecessarily to AfD that could instead be prodded.

Automatically sending articles to AfD when deprodded is a method
certain to increase the number of afds for articles that do not need
deletion at all. We already have more AfD nominations than can be
intelligently dealt with.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Phil Nash <pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Andrew Turvey wrote:
>>> ----- "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any
>>>> kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod.
>>>> Have we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites?
>>>
>>> I think sometimes people forget that we have over 100,000 active
>>> editors, only just over 1,500 of whom are admins - less than 2%.
>>> Non-admins can't even see deleted articles let alone restore them or
>>> discuss them. That's the "harm" of allowing re-proding of contested
>>> deletions - it excludes most of the community from the discussion.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>
> I agree, up to a point. Requests for undeletion of PROD'ded articles to
> admins in my experience are treated with courtesy, and some are userfied to
> deal with the reasons for CSD/PROD. If they then don't make it, fair enough,
> but in my experience those requesting undeletion/userfication are those who
> created the article in the first place, or a different editor with a perhaps
> better information to hand to establish notability. However, many
> inexperienced editors create articles without a full understanding of
> [[WP:GNG]] and its specialist project-based criteria; PROD, like CSD is a
> little of a blunt instrument, but you'd think a week should be long enough
> to alert article creators, and interested parties, to react accordingly. I
> would agree. however, that PROD, once declined, should trigger AFD, because
> there is obviously a debate to be had, and we cannot reply upon eternal
> vigilance or even substantial commitment from volunteers, and that includes
> admins.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>