NTWW Hilarious! They try to make an article and it gets speedy deleted!, ....very amusing Options

[the fieryangel]

Really funny stuff....and not really surprising....

[wikiwhistle]

Really funny stuff....and not really surprising....

Lol! That is funny, do you think someone had it in for them? Thanks for posting the link.

[the fieryangel]

Really funny stuff....and not really surprising....

Lol! That is funny, do you think someone had it in for them? Thanks for posting the link.

There's a LOOONNNGGG discussion about this over at AN....

[wikiwhistle]

On AN, people are saying they were doing it to prove a point, as they deliberately created it unsourced at first. Maybe, but people deleting things should check for sources themselves before judging something based on their existing lack-of-knowledge.

I think deletionism (and I say this as someone who's possibly a deletionist') is getting a bit hair-trigger these days and very gormless when it comes to some AfDs etc.

If an article is in a poor state, some people are judging it at a glance based on content (which can easily be changed) and their own lack of knowledge of a subject. Instead they should be judging whether the subject itself is notable. How hard can it be? Google news and books are their friend, plus common sense when it comes to historical subjects. But no.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Thu 2nd October 2008, 2:34pm

[everyking]

Obviously deleting it was a bad move, but the article initially consisted of only one short, unreferenced sentence, which did not assert the topic's notability unambiguously. New page patrollers should show some common sense--if an article is started by a long-term editor like Durova (or, practically speaking, anyone with a blue-linked username), the patroller ought to at least Google search to ascertain notability before speedy deletion. But they have to deal with a lot of junk and I don't think the initial deletion demonstrates a serious problem.

[wikiwhistle]

Obviously deleting it was a bad move, but the article initially consisted of only one short, unreferenced sentence, which did not assert the topic's notability unambiguously. New page patrollers should show some common sense--if an article is started by a long-term editor like Durova (or, practically speaking, anyone with a blue-linked username), the patroller ought to at least Google search to ascertain notability before speedy deletion. But they have to deal with a lot of junk and I don't think the initial deletion demonstrates a serious problem.

Yes- if it's a bit rubbish, first google if they don't understand what it's on about to see if it's possibly notable, rather than the deleter just assuming it's not notable because he's never heard of it. Or even fix it by adding a ref.

That it was deleted despite being from an established editor makes me think the deleter doesn't like that particular editor. Or did people know what the NTWW were doing/ was it broadcast at the same exact time/live? Only I think some people have a thing against NTWW.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Thu 2nd October 2008, 5:25pm

[maggot3]

That it was deleted despite being from an established editor makes me think the deleter doesn't like that particular editor.

Nah, just some random new page patroller. They're often pretty zealous about CSD tagging.

[anthony]

That it was deleted despite being from an established editor makes me think the deleter doesn't like that particular editor.

Or maybe the deleter just doesn't know Durova.

The whole system is broken on far too many levels for there to be simple fix. About the only way to win is not to play.

[Random832]

That it was deleted despite being from an established editor makes me think the deleter doesn't like that particular editor.

Nah, just some random new page patroller. They're often pretty zealous about CSD tagging.

Tagger != Deleter

Since it was tagged, that indicates that more likely than not the deleter didn't get there from new page patrol. (To save you all the trip, the deleter was User:Orangemike. I know nothing of his politics.)

[wikiwhistle]

Since it was tagged, that indicates that more likely than not the deleter didn't get there from new page patrol. (To save you all the trip, the deleter was User:Orangemike. I know nothing of his politics.)

He's been around a while, he'd know of all the people involved. But hey, it's not his favourite science fiction.

[dogbiscuit]

Tagger != Deleter

Since it was tagged, that indicates that more likely than not the deleter didn't get there from new page patrol. (To save you all the trip, the deleter was User:Orangemike. I know nothing of his politics.)

Don't know him enough to know what his relations are like with Durova, but he will know darn well who Durova is (and has interacted in the past) which makes the deletion rather pointy me thinks.

[thekohser]

I am bemused by the fact that Guy "JzG" Chapman gets into it with Durova on the Admin Noticeboard, almost immediately. Watching those two fight each other is like me watching a Notre Dame - Michigan game.

[Anonymous editor]

Obviously deleting it was a bad move, but the article initially consisted of only one short, unreferenced sentence, which did not assert the topic's notability unambiguously. New page patrollers should show some common sense--if an article is started by a long-term editor like Durova (or, practically speaking, anyone with a blue-linked username), the patroller ought to at least Google search to ascertain notability before speedy deletion. But they have to deal with a lot of junk and I don't think the initial deletion demonstrates a serious problem.

100% agree.

[KStreetSlave]

I am bemused by the fact that Guy "JzG" Chapman gets into it with Durova on the Admin Noticeboard, almost immediately. Watching those two fight each other is like me watching a Notre Dame - Michigan game.

Angry Irish Catholic drunks fighting Angry American Protestant drunks?

I'd try the Shula Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shula_Bowl). Better comparison -- two teams nobody cares about. Durova is FAU (she looks like an owl) and Guy is whatever FIU is.

[Kurt M. Weber]

Two things that are bugging me:

First, all the people who are claiming that new articles should have sources or they should be deleted on sight. That is patently absurd. Sources are only needed for direct quotes, or for claims whose factuality has been challenged. This obsession over sourcing every single statement regardless is incredibly unhealthy.

Second, the suggestion that people should work on new articles in userspace before moving them to mainspace. That runs counter to the whole concept of a wiki. The idea of a wiki is that some random person sees an article is needed on a subject, and writes a sentence or two. Later on, someone else finds the article, notes that it is missing a bit of information that he or she possesses and adds it; this continues indefinitely, with the article growing organically. This can't happen if you start articles in userspace, where J. Random Personwhoknowssomethingimportantaboutthesubject probably can't find it.

Thank god for my DCI Finals CDs...they keep me sane.

This post has been edited by Kurt M. Weber: Fri 3rd October 2008, 7:11pm

[anthony]

Two things that are bugging me:

First, all the people who are claiming that new articles should have sources or they should be deleted on sight. That is patently absurd. Sources are only needed for direct quotes, or for claims whose factuality has been challenged. This obsession over sourcing every single statement regardless is incredibly unhealthy.

Seems like a completely appropriate rule, if it were enforced consistently. I would imagine *any* encyclopedia would have this same rule. The sources might not be listed in the final work, but they should be available to the editor upon request. I certainly had to include a list of every source I used for my college research papers. Besides providing backup for factual claims, sources are useful for showing that a work was not plagiarized.

But this isn't even a rule, let alone is it one that's enforced consistently. Instead, it is used as a club when other arguments fail.

If it were enforced consistently, then there should be a separate field for it. Maybe I should make a MediaWiki extension that supports this. Putting sources in the comments field is possible now, but a separate field just for sources would be more useful. Maybe some algorithm could even be devised to require the source field to be filled out whenever information was being added. Sure, people could get around this easily - it's soft security - but at least it'd remind people of the need to always give your sources. (If this were a rule - right now it isn't.)

[anthony]

Alternatively, something should be done to separate the parts of Wikipedia which are sourced from the parts which aren't. A separate namespace? Stable versions? There are a lot of possibilities. But there's no one, and no entity, in charge of thinking about these types of things.

[EricBarbour]

they've already scrubbed the histories.....crappers