Agreed. I did in fact have this in mind last night when I encountered the problem.
But sometimes one does have to say this to a contributor. I occasionally decline a speedy, and send it or AfD , with the reason being some variant. of "I think the community should decide this one/". I have a good deal of experience there, but nobody has the ability to predict with 100% accuracy what the community will do. In a borderline case, it's fair to give people an opportunity. (In particular, I will often give them an opportunity if they protest a speedy against my advice they are unlikely to succeed) On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:56 PM, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've worked very often at CSD, but I have just now been taking a look >> at AfC, in response to the messages about the backlog. It surprised me >> initially to see that articles I would certainly have passed at speedy >> were being declined there, & I was going to post a complaint about it. >> But then I though it over again: >> >> I think the effectual standard being used by some of the reviewers at >> AfC is not whether it will pass speedy, but whether it would be likely >> to pass AfD. Though seeing this surprised me at first, i can see >> reason for it . Passing speedy does not mean it is an acceptable >> article. About 500 articles that pass speedy are deleted every week, >> either by Prod or AfD. Speedy is for articles that can be >> unambiguously deleted, and some classes of things that may well be >> utterly non-notable -- such as products and computer programs and >> books -- are excluded from the speedy process because of the >> difficulty in passing a rapid unambiguous judgment. Why should we >> accept an article at AfC on a self-published book without any reviews >> to be found? If the rules were to accept it, I would need after >> accepting it to send it immediately to AfD & it would surely be >> deleted. The criterion at speedy A7 is the deliberately very low bar >> of indicating some good faith importance, which is much less than >> notability. Asserting someone has played on a college baseball team is >> enough to pass speedy--a person might reasonably thing an encyclopedia >> like WP should cover such athletes. But we don't, and unless there is >> exceptional non-local sourcing, the article will inevitably be >> deleted. Why should we accept it at AfC? >> >> In such cases, we serve the user better to direct them to more >> fruitful topics. Perhaps the effective standard should be , having a >> plausible chance at AfD. I agree that some people at AfC are wrongly >> rejecting on the apparent basis of it never having potential for being >> a GA. >> >> Similarly, if the grammar or referencing style is so weak that if I >> accepted it, I would feel an obligation to rewrite it, why should I >> not try to get the original contributor to improve this? We can't >> delete articles even at AfD on such grounds, but should we encourage >> people to write them ? >> >> > > I firmly agree with that assessment, but there is something else at > play here too. When someone submits an article for creation, and it is > approved, they should have at least some amount of confidence that it > survives for some period of time. It would be utter madness to on the > one hand say to new contributers "that's good enough, we're tossing it > into mainspace" and on the other see a different editor propose it for > deletion two days later. If you really want to confuse the hell out of > your newcomers, that seems the way to go. If not, then you need to set > standards a little higher. I for one am not willing to tell a new > editor "it's good enough to be submitted, see you at AfD in two days". > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
