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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
