I know David in real life so maybe I am not as objective as I could be but
I know how hard he works and how diligent he is about this admin work he
does. He is doing the devil's work in my opinion. I couldn't do what he
does so I'm thankful for his efforts. Thank you David.

When David has flagged things I've worked on -- or that I disagree on his
take on something others have worked on and he's flagged -- he's been very
willing to have a conversation about it -- and has changed his stance more
than once.

That said, it's down to the quality of the first draft. In this instance,
the draft, in my opinion, did a disservice to the subject. Although there
were good citations, the content of the page was not strong enough or well
developed enough to reflect what the entity actually does. And didn't
establish notability or have the basic details needed to be up on
Wikipedia. It was a draft and belonged in a Draft, Sandbox, or user space.

So this is another case of an enthusiastic editor putting something up on
the main space without doing the building blocks work that was needed. I
love the enthusiasm displayed here but helping new folks who want to create
entries for their friends and relatives or want to start right off with a
new entry -- vs. working on building skills by adding citations and
improving the gajillions of articles that need TLC -- well it begins to
wear even this inclusionist down. I don't think I had the guts or
confidence to start a new stub until I had been editing regularly for 6
months, but obviously other people have a different take on this.

Mitar, these long breathy quite frankly TL;DR posts don't really help your
cause. I think your concerns have been expressed and people have been great
about responding. But at a certain point no one has time to dig through all
your words and it becomes a bit presumptive that people have time to give
these legitimate concerns the attention they deserve. Just thought I'd
mention that. Totally ironic of me to say because I am a long-winded person
myself. So take that for what you will.... :-)

Again, only my opinion, all of the above. But wanted to give a shout out to
David and thank him publicly.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:01 PM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to