Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

Archives

Big Events 2007 & 2008 2009, deletion 2009 2010, deletion 2010 2011, deletion 2011 My Badz FAC Reviews, NEWT, Poop patrol Autoreview and Rollback Article Rescue Squadron

This is where I archive threads from 2012 that are about deletion.

Of the 120 or so primary schools that were suddenly mass proposed for deletion over the holiday period, roughly half are being redirected and half are being deleted, and some are apparently being deleted without properly evaluating the consensus. Not only is it contrary to any effort to adhere to consistency in the way policies, guidelines, or precedents are applied throughout the encyclopedia, but such arbitrary voting and closing by those who are not aware of the policies, guidelines, and precedents, does not accord equal debate treatment for similar or near identical articles. The situation is now getting ridiculous and a ruling is urgently required one way or another that we can all follow and save unnecessary bureaucracy. Personally, I very strongly support the redirection of nn schools and its clearly established precedent, but if policy does get changed, I'd kowtow to whichever way the cookie crumbles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi having just returned from a Governor's meeting I feel a hint of COI here, but suggest you take it to deletion review. MHO if the choice is between deletion and redirect then it would help if the school name includes the name of the locale, otherwise you risk a misleading redirect. ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My only interest is in following the precedent we have. Although I coordinate the schools project, I don't really care what happens to the school articles as long as we have a clear guideline to act on. That said, it's a paradox that near identical articles get closed differently at AfD depending on who turns up to vote. There have indeed also been some odd readings of consensus too - objectively construed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you moved, restored, and deleted the userpage for User talk:Betty Logan back in 2010, a number of times. There's a query as to whether this account is a sock, or at least an alt account. Is there anything we should know about the user page, which remains uncreated? Tony (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, it was an attack created by User:Neytiriblueyavatar and had not been edited by Betty Logan. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, WSC. Tony (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again with this school AfD stuff. This situation is getting worse. Something needs to be done urgently, but I don't particularly wish for my talk page to become the venue for the inevitable dramafest, and we need to know where best to take it. Please see this thread and this thread. Thanks in advance your advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, unless I've misread that 151 AFDs is a very different scale to the 60,000 uBLPs that were threatened in the events of two years ago. Also taking articles to AFD is less contentious than deleting them out of process. I'm not sure what would make a primary school notable enough for an article. Obviously some will be because of celebrity intake, and others because of architectural merit. If you have an institution with 700 kids plus staff then it would be likely over time to meet the GNG. That said there are plenty of settlements that would currently be hard to delete but IMHO would be less notable than a surviving Victorian Primary school. If there are nominations that are troutworthy then I'd go to the nominators talkpage. If however they are nominating a stream of articles that invariably get deleted then your only real option is an RFC to broaden wp:School.

BTW. If you want a change of pace from that I've jotted a few thoughts down here, I'm not happy with the way I've structured it and I'm sure my grammar will make you wince, so feel free to reshape it. If you find bits you disagree with then hopefully I'll see you on the talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 23:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the current issue is not so much one of whether primary schools are notable, rather than what to actually do with the ones that clearly aren't. Obviously there are some borderline cases which can naturally be intelligently debated at AfD. What we are looking at however, is a mass nomination at AfD at the rate of one or two per minute without any consideration for whether they might be notable or not, and it appears that is is simply being done from going through lists in categories. The scale of this operation is indeed not akin to BLP, but unlike BLP, schools articles are rarely toxic, and where other generally accepted mechanism exist for their treatment, sending them to AfD is more an expression of the nominators' POV against school notability in general, besides which, the number of editors with a knowledge of policies and guidelines for schools is far too low to assure consistency of voting and closure. The number of users with that knowledge and/or who can close such a quantity of AfD is even lower, and it is time consuming, and wasteful to resources. Although I am a coordinator and perhaps the most active member of the schools project, I have more pressing engagements such as RfA and NPP - and reading your essay ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if some of the articles nominated are notable then as I suggested you could take this up with the nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The next step? I caught a case of copyvio and reverted that. But how to get the copyvio striked out? Involved article: Gor_Mahia_F.C. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I declined the CSD as it is an article created in 2006 with 144 edits from multiple editors. So it should be easy to find a pre-copyvio version and revert to that. Remember G12 is only for articles where there isn't a pre copyvio version that one can revert to - otherwise you allow vandals to delete any article simply by adding a copyvio to it with one account and a G12 tag with another. ϢereSpielChequers 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Hello, you removed my BLPPROD tag, WP:BLPPROD clearly states the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. The sources provided were not realiable on Emy Samir Ghanem so next time you plan removing the tag make sure you do it correctly. JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi JayJay, when we designed the BLPprod we had to compromise and that made it complicated, sorry about that and no you aren't the first to be caught out by that. It only takes a poor source to prevent a BLPprod, but if a BLPprod is valid then you need a reliable source to remove it. ϢereSpielChequers 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Arghh this makes me confused. The article needs to be deleted, nomination? JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, as one of those who designed the BLPprod I can't say I'm particularly proud of it. But we are unlikely to get consensus either to scrap it or widen it. I'm not seeing a particular need for the article to be deleted, is there something negative in it that I missed? My Arabic isn't up to checking for potential sources, but if you have a look and it turns out she was in minor roles then you could prod or AFD it. Alternatively if you project tag and categorise it you will sometimes find that there will be someone who knows that genre who will come round and prod or AFD the unnotables. ϢereSpielChequers 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not deleted, but needs to be cleaned up a bit JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we can agree on that. Now would you mind removing your BLPprod, but please don't just hit undo as you'd take out some other changes. ϢereSpielChequers 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hegazawy has removed all the tags and what not so you can just remove it JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And it seems they've added what looks like a reliable source:) ϢereSpielChequers 21:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for switching this article from speedy deletion to AfD, which is more appropriate. I recogonize that the article is controversial, and that there will be discussion about whether it should be deleted. However, I agree that there should be a debate about it notability, rather than just having one admin delete it because someone doesn't like the article.Debbie W. 01:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure that we should be deleting articles on notable events simply because we discover they have been staged for Political effect. Such a rule would take out quite a few stories, a major bridge and possibly even some wars. There is a subtle line between boosting bad news and giving a neutral presentation of it. In my view if the subject is notable before we create an article and we then create a neutrally worded article we are doing no ill service to anyone. I'm not aware of the extent of coverage this is getting on the US side of the pond, but if Romney becomes the candidate I can see this eventually getting an article. If his candidacy fails because of this then it will also merit an article. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

After doing a little research, I found that people are not in agreement over whether the santorum neologism is a Google bomb or not. There is actually a discussion on the Google bomb Wiki page about whether Dan Savage's campaign is a Google bomb or a redefining of the word 'santorum'. So, I removed the statement in the campaign for "romney" neologism article comparing the growth of the santorum neologism and the romney neologism.Debbie W. 15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I nearly added the word alleged..... ϢereSpielChequers 15:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for declining deletion of Gora Chakk Wala , really thank you very much. I had created some article with same situation with much efforts but they got deleted and i was very disappointed since. So really very grateful to you. And please tell me are you an administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TariButtar (talk • contribs) 02:18, 21 February 2012‎

Hi TariButtar, you're welcome, and yes I'm an administrator here. I suspect that part of your problem is that some of my colleagues don't understand Indian culture, and part is a sourcing issue. I can try to give some of our fellow editors a more global outlook, but it would help if you were to cite some reliable sources for the facts in your articles. ϢereSpielChequers 00:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate; deleted; see Iroku (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iroku). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I declined an A7 but have no view as to an AFD, though if the AFD is a keep I'd have thought a redirect was more apt than delete for the dupe. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello WereSpielChequers, First of all I appreciate the fast response to my {{Db-g7}}. But we have a problem I tagged User:Mlpearc/Menu and User talk:Mlpearc/Menu and you deleted my workshop User:Mlpearc/Workshop. A fix will be appreciated. Thanx. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think I was checking a redirect or something. ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanx. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Talkback}} U previously removed g11 tag by improving. I should have done it myself. Sorry for that but it already has a article on it. So i tagged it under a10 now. Now i think it is eligible to get deleted under a10 atleast. Thanks! Yasht101 13:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yasht101, redirects are harmless and cheap. I don't see anything worth merging in but no harm having one as a redirect to the other. ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats a better idea! Yasht101 00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please answer a question on a talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamaguchi_opening_rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renju player (talk • contribs)

Yes of course. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK now? 4 refs, is it enough?Renju player (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

4 external links is great, but a reference to an independent source from outside the Renju community would help, especially with notability. ϢereSpielChequers 08:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

People outside the Renju community don't care about rule details. Renju notability may be measured by independent sources, not Yamaguchi opening rule notability. As an example: being a scientist, I've made a research concerning helicoidal antiferromagnetic structures and showed theoretically that its properties depend on Fermi surface's nesting. Is it notable? Yes, there were a couple of articles in physical journals, it was proved to be a correct model - now there is a lot of articles on this matter. Does anybody from the outside know about it? Of course no. Try to google it, you'll see. Only Physics community. Do you see the similarity of these two cases? Renju player (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One more Wiki example is en_passant - it's a rule from chess, so only chess-specific sources are available. People know about queen's power, they know how does knight move, but some deeper rules like en passant or castling possibility in details are game-specific without significant sources outside the community. Renju player (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Renju, there is a difference between "would help" and "must have", and yes there is a grey area in notability where people have long debates and some articles get deleted. My advice would be to add the most independent reliable source that you can find. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you consider revdel of the edit on User talk:Transoxiana made by the now banned User:Hoaxer96 under criteria #2 of WP:CRD. Thanks NtheP (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to stick my nose in, but I went ahead and did that myself (WSC, feel free to touchup anything you would have done differently f appropriate). --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, neatly done, and good spot Nthep. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jill Kenton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kenton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Thanks, but I have no opinion on that one. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I provided notices to everyone who had edited the article in its short history. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New message on my talk page! Thanks :) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure why you cancelled the CSD at Arjun Feroz Khan with a redirect to Arjun (Actor). He is never called Arjun Feroz Khan in any of the numerous sources that I can find, albeit those sources are mostly passing mentions. Nor is he called Arjun Firoz Khan. He is reliably sourced as being called Firoz Khan prior to changing his name to Arjun - mononyms are common in India and should not be confused with the western "stage name" concept, such as Madonna. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A redirect by definition is not the ideal name for an article, I am not proposing to move the article to Arjun Feroz Khan. The test for whether a redirect is useful is much lower, the questions one should ask are: Is this ambiguous? Is this derogatory? And is this implausible? If someone created an article at Arjun Feroz Khan then we can assume that at least one person thought that was his name and therefore a redirect is potentially useful. Remember deletion is a last resort for things that can't be resolved by ordinary editing. ϢereSpielChequers 07:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think a meaningless peacock phrase like "renowned" is enough to decline a speedy? That's nothing but peacockery, plain and simple. It's like "award winning". I got first place in a spelling bee in 6th grade, so I'm award winning, so I'm not A7 material. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On its own no, but in that context yes absolutely. Some sculptors are notable some aren't, it is entirely credible that a sculptor could be award winning and therefore an article that asserts that is not A7 material. A renowned local dinner lady would be A7 material, unless of course she was renowned for something else such as her previous career as an Olympian. That particular one is at AFD and it may well be that the renowned bit is a hoax. But remember the test for A7 includes The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The same thing applies to Award winning. An award winning 6th grade speller would qualify for A7, an award winning spelling book would not. ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's not a "credible" claim, as words like "renowned" and "award winning" are mere puffery that get thrown around so often as to be meaningless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}

Not in my book they aren't. Award winning in particular is an unambiguous assertion. The award itself may turn out to be bogus, but if so the article is a hoax - G3 not A7. If you wouldn't consider it credible for a sculptor to be "renowned" or "award winning" what would you accept as sufficient to avoid A7? ϢereSpielChequers 23:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Something that objectifies the "renowned". Like, if some famous person in the field (i.e., someone with an article) mentored them or said "they're the best". Or a link to the award's Wikipedia article showing it to be a notable one. Awards are handed out like Sam's Club samples anymore, so unless the award is notable in its own right, I'm not buying it. "Renowned" has no meaning unless you show how they're renowned; otherwise, it's just a word people throw into their bios to sound like they're hot stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

At that point you are in AFD territory. Though you're nearly right about ""Renowned" has no meaning unless you show how they're renowned" - but to avoid a speedy you need to assert, you don't have to show. I.e. "Renowned" has no meaning unless you say how they're renowned. So back to the case in hand, saying someone is a renowned sculptor is an assertion of importance. Please remember in future that to avoid A7 an article requires an assertion of importance, and that that is a lower standard than requiring that it show importance. ϢereSpielChequers 07:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think the word "renowned" is meaningless and not an assertation of importance. It's just a word people throw around to sound important when they're obviously not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the word does have meaning and it is an unambiguous assertion of importance. The real issue is that to you it isn't a credible assertion of importance and to me it is, provided that is the subject is renowned for something which it would be credible for someone to be sufficiently notable for that they merit a Wikipedia article. One interesting way to resolve this would be to persuade someone to do a study on words used in new articles and how predictive they were as to the subject being notable. I suspect we'd both treat "most amazing ...... in the world" as a not being a credible assertion of importance, and I'd hope we'd both treat Nobel prize winning as a credible assertion. If the conclusion was that renowned was a good indicator of someone not being genuinely renowned then we could make it an example of a non-credible assertion. However I would be surprised if we got such a result and rather expect that we'd find that a substantial proportion of editors use the word correctly. ϢereSpielChequers 08:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently an AfD discussion for the Seamus (dog) article. Based on your participation is previous AfDs, I thought you might be interested. HHIAdm (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

{{talkback}} Bgwhite (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you consider this article acceptable. I speedied it once for lack of notability and sources, and again as a copyright violation (this may eventually be remedied since her legal representative who created the article has added a CC tag, unfortunately not the right one yet). The text also contains unsourced spam.

It's currently still a copyright violation, spammy, written by her representative and the claim of notability depends only on her own website, yet you don't even think it's worth sticking a prod on it? I'm not going to wheel, but if we are accepting illegal spam from a coi editor, what hope is there? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I declined a speedy A7 on it, if you want to dispute the notability I'd suggest an AFD, but the test for A7 is much lower and I do see "credible assertions of importance or significance". Whether Nayala is notable or not is another matter (lack of notability not being a speedy deletion criteria), but I'm happy lo leave that to those who are interested in the subject. As for whether or not it contains copyvios, well it wasn't tagged for that - I just saw an A7 that I considered incorrect. ϢereSpielChequers 15:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear WereSpielChequers

I hope you are well. Thank you for reviewing the article on Isobel Waller-Bridge. I understand the proposed deletion is due to her resume not being large enough, and being unable to source enough references for her work? Isobel has worked extensively for the institutions credited on the page, and for the people referenced, which can all be confirmed on her agents website. I'm not sure why the agents website has been deleted? I am unsure as to why King's College London has been detagged? Isobel officially attended this institution. I have taken the liberty of reducing the information, but would be grateful if you would allow for her agents website to be published here, as well as past and future information on her work.

Many thanks and kindest regards

Noeline1984 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Noeline, I've linked King's College. To link to another wikipedia article you just put it in double [[square brackets]]. To ensure a neutral point of view and to make sure we only have articles on notable subjects we aim to reference Wikipedia article from reliable independent sources, the theory being that anyone can create their own website and proclaim their version of reality, but if the BBC writes about them then they exist and are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. So to avoid that article being deleted, all you need do is link to a few reviews of here and her work, the classical music press or the press should do the trick. ϢereSpielChequers 10:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Noeline1984, could you please state whether or not you have a conflict of interest regarding Isobel Waller-Bridge or her agent(s)? What is your motivation for writing the article? Thank you. -- Trevj (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear WereSpielChequers, I hope you are well. I was wondering whether you had any more thoughts on the article for Isobel Waller-Bridge. I have updated her page with references which correlate with the work she's completed. I noticed the proposed deletion was logged around 3 weeks ago, and so i wondered about progress? Huge thanks and all the best, Nicholas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.70.133 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The Edinburgh Evening news is a reliable source, but it is only a passing mention, it doesn't concentrate on her or her work. I suspect that to meet the inclusion criteria here you are going to have to wait until she wins a major award or is profiled in a significant publication. Sorry about that, but that's the problem with Wikipedia being a tertiary source - we need the secondary sources to cover a subject first. ϢereSpielChequers 09:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the erroneous speedy deletes. I tagged the school one, then realized it specifically wasn't to be used on schools, didn't know how to withdraw it. I'll take more care. Leoniceno (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, our deletion criteria are a bit of a minefield. I think the rationale behind schools not being eligible is that there are almost always sufficient sources if one looks. For future reference, declining a speedy you've just tagged is easy, just revert your edit with an edit summary of "whoops" and change the note you gave the author. ϢereSpielChequers 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There's meaningful content on that page? If there is, please let me know exactly what it might be, because even with the help of Google Translate, I'm getting nothing. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the lede has been tidied somewhat, but what is:

yaha pr 70% mundel he isliy is mundel ki kheri shilla kheri shill ko gudha kheri bhi kahte he new name by shiva mundel's facebook friend "devnagri"

that supposed to be. According to Google, it's just gibberish; not just not the English language; it's no language at all. There are a few English words sprinkled here and there in the article, but I suspect that those may have just sort of happened. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Be careful of overusing Google Translate, it doesn't yet contain enough languages to say that something is no language at all, just not one it currently supports. Nor is it much good on lists of things, whether castes, schools or temples. There seem to be a list of castes and of temples. I suspect it is in Nagaur district though whether Nagour is a typo or an alternate name I'm not yet sure. But its definitely a village in Rajasthan, the bus routes are a clincher there. ϢereSpielChequers 09:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for clearing that up, then. And good luck with cleaning up the article. That's the first CSD I've misidentified in quite a while. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Google search is quite useful for some of those things, Nagour district definitely has hits. We are still missing lots of populated places in India, and some of them need quite a bit of work. cheers ϢereSpielChequers 09:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello WereSpielChequers. Thanks for informing me that I tagged Sayers Croft for csd too quickly, I admit that I was a bit forgetful at the time. However Valenciano has already told me. Thanks for letting me know though. OtterStar talk 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Otterstar, sorry for template bombing you, I hadn't noticed that Valenciano had explained about not being overhasty with goodfaith newbies without declining the tag. BTW would you mind striking out your deletion warning on User talk:Squiz18? Currently they have a bit of a wall of warnings, which must look rather intimidating. ϢereSpielChequers 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster has made a redaction request on my talk page. SeeUser talk:Ben MacDui#Help Requested. It concerns this diff at ANI. I have quick look at WP:Revdel and it seems to me to falls under those provisions and indeed those of Oversight. I will inform User:WCM of the latter. I have not undertaken a revdel myself before and as the instructions contain alarming red letters and I am a little short of time I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Ben MacDui 17:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Having started to tally the number of revisions that would be involved I've rereadWikipedia:Revdel#Large-scale_use and think it best to steer this one to the Oversighters. All the revdels that I've done have been on much lower traffic pages than that one.ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. I will inform the editor concerned. Ben MacDui10:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I came across an old page on Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion recently, and thought I'd run my own experiment. I've created a link that allows me to easily see what articles are currently tagged with {{db-a7}}, so I can have a look to see if they meet the criteria. While the majority do, I've found quite a few just today that don't, and undone the CSD tag on them. You can easily see what they are by having a look at my contributions. I also notice editors seem to be very quick to add a CSD tag in some instances, such as here which was done in under a minute, even before the article's creator had finished. This is despite the instructions on New Pages Patrol specifically say "don't bite the newbies and rush in to tag stuff ". I'm wondering if my method is possibly an alternative way of just reviewing CSDs and auditing them, without running into the problems of doppelganger accounts and claims of deceiving established editors that we ran into last time? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, I'm not surprised that you are finding speedy deletion tagging errors, I find loads of them whenever I spend time at newpage patrol. Everyone is of course welcome to reverse incorrect tags - no need to describe that as an experiment. It potentially becomes an experiment if you measure the results and try to produce statistics for the proportion of incorrect tags. But doing that accurately is rather difficult, not least because the more clearly something meets the A7 criteria the quicker it is likely to be deleted. However I would suggest that when you decline an A7 on a new BLP you replace it with a BLPprod if you are going to leave it unreferenced.

Overly speedy A7 tagging is something where the community is deeply divided. The speedy deletion instructions usually say not to tag as A1 or A3 in the first few minutes of an article's existence, but though I believe that community consensus lies with this there are some taggers who will ignore that consensus. When it comes to A7s there is a genuine divide between those who think it important to tag A7s as fast as possible in order to catch the author before they logoff; And those like me who think that the quicker you tag an article for deletion the more likely you are to lose the author. Attempts by myself and others to add a little time to the A7 process have not succeeded, but at the same time editors who tag A7s too speedily can garner opposes for this at RFA.

As for NEWT, sadly the problems that it exposed are still with us. The use of mystery shopping was not the only contentious thing about it, some saw it as disruptive to the newpage patrol process, and at least a couple of the articles created were admittedly borderline. So if you want to avoid provoking the deletionists it is safer to err on the side of caution and not decline A7s that are borderline. There are plenty of A7s that I see where I wouldn't tag them as such, or at least not in the first 24 hours, but where I'm very sure they'd be deleted at AFD and I can see how some could argue that they meet the CSD criteria.

You might also consider informing the taggers whose tags you've declined or amended. I do this and would admit to quite mixed results, some taggers respond well to polite feedback and rein in their horns, others can be more disputatious, I've even had one who argued that being a professor was not itself a credible claim or importance or significance as not all professors survive AFD! But I still persevere with informing taggers because as far as I'm concerned once an incorrect or over enthusiastic tag has been applied to a newbies work the damage is often beyond repair; All that we can hope to do is to retrain the tagger not to bite similar editors in future. ϢereSpielChequers 20:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think my problem is more with the speed at which A7s get applied, and the net result it has on readers. It won't really kill Wikipedia for crud to sit around for an extra 24 hours, with the net benefit of placating newcomers. You can argue, with merit, that if an article is unreferenced, no sources turn up, and it looks like it hasn't got a hope in hell of getting through AfD, then we should speedy delete it to save a lot of wasted time. The only concern I have is if you look at the article once it's deleted, all you get is the boilerplate text for A7, whereas if it goes as far as AfD, you can still see the discussion (although if all the "discussion" has is "delete per nom" then that's not much help either). Because newbies tend to edit articles in large gaps of a week or more, rather than edit every day like we regulars, they've got a good chance of the CSD / AfD completely passing them by before they've had time to participate.

As regards the BLP PROD, I was going to do this for Kaos One but noticed that the main editor was in the process of moving things over from the Italian Wikipedia's article, which does have references. However, he's just copy and pasted the text as seen on screen, rather than the actual underlying ref tags, so it does deserve a BLP PROD as it currently stands. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I share your concern re speed. A few years ago I drafted this proposal, if we ever got consensus to address the problem of overhasty deletion then I still think this would be a way to do so. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would simply recommend that we make it mandatory that A7 cannot be applied until at least 3 hours after the last edit by the page creator. I would put this directly in WP:CSD, which would make it policy, not just suggestions in the NPP. No need for a technical fix--it's a behavioral problem (on the part of the tagger) and could be solved via behavioral means (counseling, warning, blocking). Unfortunately, there is a small but vocal contingent of people who argue that tagging instantly is actually good, because they can "catch" the initial editor while they're still online, under the argument that many of these people post to WP then disappear right away. Personally, I think this position is malarkey, but my understanding is that this point of resistance has prevented any codification in policy of minimum time-to-wait for A7 tagging. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

During the recent redevelopment of special newpages I did propose that A1 and A3 tags simply not be appliable in the first few minutes, but I was deemed to be making things over complex for the first version. I think it is important that we do this in a relatively automated way that fits in with the way the patrollers work, we already have enough hassle dissuading them from slapping A1s and A3s at the moment of creation. I have now moved to the view that we need a sort of delayed action tag that only the newpage patrollers are aware of. That way patrollers could continue to look at the latest articles and if appropriate tag them with the relevant deletion tags, but, and here's the complex bit, those would be delayed action tags that would not go live for a period of time, and then only if the article had not been further edited. So if someone creates an articles that qualifies for A1, A3 or A7 the tagger would click that tag and move on to the next article. In special newpages the article would go red so other taggers knew to ignore it. If it was subsequently edited before the delayed action tag was going to come into effect then the delayed action tag would be canceled without the editor ever knowing it had existed. If the article wasn't subsequently edited then once the period of grace expired the tag would appear and the editor would be templated. If it was subsequently edited then it would simply revert to being an unpatrolled new article to be revisited by the patrollers. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting suggestion WSP, but I fear the WMF has closed off any major developments for the New Pages Feed by now. What is needed is more discretion on the part of the patrollers when deciding when (rather than if) to tag for A7; there are plenty of pages that are obvious immediate A7's - especially if a patroller does a quick search for sources. A solution I use very often when encountering a potential A7 is to tag the article for notability/sources atc, and leave a message for the user through the Curation Tool message box. This puts both the article and the user talk page on my watchlist and I can follow up later and tag for CSD if there are no improvements; of course, there's nothing I can do about it if another patroller comes along and CSDs it in the meantime. I'm still seeing all the issues with new and newbie patrollers that I've been discussing for years. Without making NPP a user right, there should be a greater effort to insist that they read all the related pages and guidelines before they start patrolling. What would really reduce the burden on patrollers of course is the new, new-user landing page that has been promised for nearly two years by the Foundation but appears not to be being actively developed (perhaps I've missed something), I think it's a major priority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25