[WikiEN-l] you have to improve upon it before tagging it for speedy deletion

[David Goodman]

The best PR we can do is to improve the improvable articles, and
explain to the authors of the others why the subjects are not suitable
for Wikipedia, or why the subjects might be, but the submitted
articles are not  capable of being used even as a base for rewriting.

Sometimes when I find a totally impossible article (such as complete
copyvio) on an important subject that interests me, I will decide to
write what amounts to a new article on that subject--and I call it an
improved version--but that's a polite  fiction. I am actually writing
an article using the original of the copied page as a source. True, at
this point I am more likely to do that than to write an article of my
own choosing, but I can't see any think they are obliged to do this.

Spending time  rewriting the best article possible on altogether
unencyclopedic subjects that will inevitably be deleted does not help
build the encyclopedia--rather the authors should be guided towards
more fruitful subject matter.

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



On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean at me.com> wrote:
>> I'm quite active at speedy deletion and often decline
>> overenthusiastic tags, but I would disagree with making it
>> compulsory to improve a good faith article one tags for deletion
>> (though I'd be happy with something that encourages this).
>
> I suggested this mostly for public relation reasons. "Well, we tried
> to improve it ourselves, but it still doesn't meet our standards.
> Sorry, but the article has to be deleted."
>
>> I also think that many of our speedy tags and templates should be
>> rewritten to be less bitey and more welcoming.
>
> While it shouldn't say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" for obvious (to me)
> reasons, I agree wholeheartedly.
>
> Emily
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:04 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
>> I'm quite active at speedy deletion and often decline overenthusiastic
>> tags, but I would disagree with making it compulsory to improve a good
>> faith article one tags for deletion (though I'd be happy with
>> something that encourages this).
>>
>> Bad faith I take as attack pages, vandalism and hoaxes
>>
>> But other stuff that merits speedy deletion ranges from
>> autobiographies to biographies of pet guinea pigs. I count myself as
>> quite inclusionist but I really don't see the point of trying to
>> improve everything before its deleted. And even though there is a
>> proposal on the strategy wiki to allow autobiographies
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:People_should_be_allowed_to_create_autobiographies
>> , I think most people would accept that very few household pets are
>> important or significant outside their own kennel, fishtank or stick
>> insect vivarium.
>>
>> Where I do think we can improve things is in giving guidance to over
>> enthusiastic new page patrollers, and in insisting that authors be
>> informed. I agree it would be overkill to template someone 12 times in
>> an hour to tell them that not one member of their pub's football team
>> merited an article. But it does concern me at CSD when I spot that the
>> author of a good faith article has a redlinked talkpage.
>>
>> I also think that many of our speedy tags and templates should be
>> rewritten to be less bitey and more welcoming.
>>
>> WereSpielChequers
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we can make up a rule that says "Unless the page was obvisouly
>>> written in bad faith, you have to improve upon it before tagging it
>>> for speedy or prod deletion. Otherwise, your nomination will be
>>> rejected."
>>>
>>> Emily
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>