I was the person who tagged the article we are discussing for deletion as no indication of importance. I am quite aware I have a certain frequency of error, probably about 2-5%, as does essentially everyone screening articles. Therefore there is an firmly established practice , that no administrator delete an article of such ground without a check from someone else, so it could not be deleted unless another administrator agreed. This reduces the error rate to about 0.05 to 0.25%,and I cannot imagine how and crowd-sourced process could do better.
The procedure worked in this case; I seem to have made one of my errors, and another editor caught it; the article was not deleted, but was sent to one of our two areas for further work on articles, the editor's user subpage (the other one is the Draft space, which is also used in such cases. They each have advantages, though they overlap.) I am not saying we have a perfect system here. All too many articles go to user subpages or draft space and never get heard of again; more important, many potentially good editors whose material is challenged do not have enough confidence to complain or enough knowledge to complain effectively. We have made improvements, and if people suggest further ones, we can make them. When I joined 9 years ago, the error rate was 5-10%, many administrators deleted without waiting for confirmation, and our overall process error rate was probably at least 2%. We can still do better than the present situation, where the result essentially depends whether the article attracts the attention of one of the relatively small number of really good editors such as Brill Lyle. There are various small and large improvements suggested, some of which may be feasible. but the key problem is not balancing the number of non-notable article accepted versus the notable ones rejected, but dealing with promotionalism. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . Articles on small organization, commercial and non-commercial, and on the people associated with them, are the ones most prone to advertising.I once also thought about dividing the site as a potential solution, but if we divided the site, the advertisers know very well the significance of having an article on WP, and would still want to be in the part where the most important articles go. The only really effective way to rid us of promotionalism is to ban anonymous editing, and immediately reject any edits from people associated with the organization or found to be paid editors. (we'd still have problems with promotional editing fro fans and such, but this is presently a lesser problem). However, this would be removing what almost everyone here considers to be an essential core principle of WP, , and is not going to happen. I was once an inclusionist, and I remain so,a bout any topic not lending itself to promotion ,or where the promotion can be removed. On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM, John <phoenixoverr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Like you where told, Having an article not assert notably, and having an > article be non-notable are effectively the same thing for wikipedia. > > You provided several examples specifically cities and plant/animal species, > both of those have inherent notability. However companies do not have such > a default status, thus must assert it. forcing the limited ~500 > administrators to review and research each of the 5693 deletions performed > yesterday (of which 1196 where in the main namespace) would place too much > burden on them if the article fails to assert notability or isnt notable > there is no effective difference. > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta > > > "management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your > > > startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be > > > something I expect to find on an encyclopedia. > > > > He he. No, the startup incubator is in the same building, but one > > floor higher. :-) > > > > http://hekovnik.com/ > > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I > added > > > the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article > > > needed help but of course that's typical of new articles. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre > > > > Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so > > much better! > > > > Hm, but while I agree that the article has not been of high quality > > from the start, I am really not sure if the best approach was for it > > to be deleted. What would be a better process in such cases? Why > > articles are not asked to be deleted with more time? > > > > My article was speedy deleted based on: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 > > > > What I do not understand is why there is a speedy deletion if article > > does not explain why the subject of the article is not significant, > > instead of deletion if article's subject is not significant? Because > > the first thing could be improved, it is a content issue? > > > > Anyway, what is the process to improve this process? Or should we just > > leave it be and everything is great? > > > > > > Mitar > > > > -- > > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>