User talk:68.239.79.82

See /Watchlist for full list

I stumbled across these WP:VSCA articles on WP:NPP @ 05:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC):

• User:Pulrich (talk · contribs) created them

1. Paul Ulrich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - himself
2. Jing Ulrich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - his wife
3. Saudi Match Point (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - his first novel
4. Blacksmith Books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - his publisher

I did not realize it at the time, but Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) added this @ 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC):

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich

... and we enter a new phase of the drama @ 05:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ulrich - thnx to User:MER-C (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacksmith Books - thnx to User:Doc Tropics (talk · contribs)

Epilogue: After the first three articles were deleted by the AfD process, within 24 hours Some Other Editor (probably a WP:SOCK for the publisher) recreated Saudi Match Point, but it was speedy deleted ... that left only Jing Ulrich under discussion at WP:COI/N, and after WP:A issues were raised, it was proposed that it also be taken to AfD ... that's when I remembered (4 June 2007) a comment that Pulrich left on his talk page, so I suggested that someone flag it as a WP:CSD#G7 referencing the author's comment, and it was gone less than 15 minutes after a {{db-author}} was hung on it ... case closed, and the discussion has been archived. —72.75.70.147 06:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Current OCD projects:

• Books written by Jonathan Raban (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1. Arabia Through the Looking Glass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2. Coasting (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
3. Hunting Mister Heartbreak: A Discovery of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
4. Passage to Juneau: A Sea and Its Meanings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
5. Soft City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
6. Surveillance (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
7. Waxwings (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Other WP:BK articles associated with Ivankinsman (talk · contribs)

1. A Good Man in Africa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2. An Ice-Cream War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
3. Any Human Heart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
4. Armadillo (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
5. As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
6. Brazzaville Beach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
7. Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928-1960 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
8. Restless (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
9. The Blue Afternoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
10. The New Confessions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Associated editors:

• Artur Weinhold (talk · contribs)
• Fraserspeirs (talk · contribs)
• Ivankinsman (talk · contribs) - authored most of the above articles
• Nabarj (talk · contribs) - user account for Jonathan Raban
• Tikiwont (talk · contribs) - NPP/Gnome

See /sandbox for full list

[edit] Protocols for speedy deletion warnings

1. Warn-author (G7)
2. Warn-band (A7)
3. Warn-bio (A7)
4. Warn-book (??)
5. Warn-copyvio (G12)
6. Warn-inc (A7)
7. Warn-nocontext (A1)
8. Warn-nonsense (G1)
9. Warn-web (A7)

[edit] Essays regarding WP:CSD and my draft protocols

• What to do after your speedy delete has been restored
• What to do when a speedy delete tag is removed
  • Draft protocol to minimize friction during speedy deletions
• It's not YOUR article
• Dirty Dozen ... tagging twelve articles for speedy deletion in a single one hour session.

[edit] Background information essays

• Not a topic for conversation ... why the Senior Partners say it's OK for me to me an anon-IP editor, period.
• Anonymous WikiGnome, or Sockpuppet? ... for when I have to come out of the closet.

[edit] Miscellaneous work in progress essays

• /scratchpad disposable sandbox for viewing edits
• Memorable quotes
• /filmographies Discussion page boilerplate for pruning filmographies

I understand completely what you are saying. I do in fact know what a midfielder is (noticing your comment on the article's talk page), but the thing I am getting sick of is seeing the Special:Newpages list basically completely populated by little tiny athlete stubs, so I decided to put a {{db-bio}} tag on one. I realized reading your comment at my page what a mistake that was, so I am not going to take that course of action again. I hadn't ever heard of some Turkish soccer team, so I figured that no harm would come. If you noticed my semi-conflict with Onofre Bouvila, you will see the same sort of thing: A very short article that I tagged then warned the author of. Little did I know that the author would take offense with my dismissal of their stub. As such, I removed the tag and moved on. And that is what I am going to do with this Turkish soccer player: Forgive and forget, I figure. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh! I remembered the incident, but it took me a while to find the Discussion page for the article in question ... BTW, I didn't ping the author, Striker buzcu (talk · contribs) ... didn't see any reason at that stage.

FYI, when I found my original post on your Talk page, I notice that my sandbox protocol Warn-nocontext isn't redlinked now, because I finished it yesterday ... please have a look and reply here on my Talk page.

Now I'll send them a ping about the protocols, and try to get them to hang stencils and boilerplates on the Discussion page first, so the WP:NPP and WP:CVU editors can see that it's a "work in progress" stub, to which their appropriate response (instead of a speedy deletion) should be, "Hey, newbie ... use your sandbox first, and ask for a second opinion before you post it." :-)

And yes, I noticed your encounter with Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs), but more has been added since I last looked at it ... I'll have to read the new messages, and I think maybe it's time to add my 2¢ worth, mostly to hawk the protocols.

Like I said, the "Flag, then tag!" paradigm should reduce these kinds of misunderstandings ... I'm going to do my "boilerplate" thing on Talk:Domingo Elizondo and point the author at the protocols, too.

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would advise against the creation of a {{db-book}} template because the best approach in these situations is to go to AfD and seek community consensus about the book's notability. It's hard for an individual user or administrator to make an evaluation of a book, and going for community consensus seems like the best way to handle these type of situations. As for {{db-band}} and such, well it's much easier to evaluate notability in those cases, since many of the band articles that are speedied nowadays can just be researched on Google to determine whether or not there is any assertion of notability. I don't think we can do the same with books, since there are usually quite a bit of reviews, criticisms, and analysis that is written on paper, and not posted online. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Points taken, but my concern is for cases where there is absolutely no attempt at providing WP:A for even paper reviews, because none exist (the short definition of non-notable) ... please take a look at Warn-book where I suggest using {{db-reason}} with the failure of WP:V as the reason. —68.239.79.82 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that even being completely unsourced is not grounds for speedy deletion. In some cases such articles might be deletable under G11 (blatant advertising) but please keep the qualifier blatant very much in mind -- if a minor rewrite would make an apparently NPOV stub out of such a article, which would then only need proper sources, that is IMO the way to go, and I would normally remove speedy tags or restore articles in such cases if they came to my attention. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, and I was under the impression that WP:Verifiability was an Official Policy of Wikipedia ... not to be disruptive, but by your criteria, I could create beau coup one paragraph stub articles about fictitious books that have never actually been written (complete with a bogus {{Infobox Book}} and ISBN to add verisimilitude), and they could never be speedy deleted just because they lack WP:Attribution ... they would all have to be taken to WP:AfD for deletion (since you would apparently decline an expired {{prod}} as well), which seems like a colossal waste of editors' time, IMHO. —68.239.79.82 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is indeed a policy, but it is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. If an articel is not verifiable, it is likley to get proded or deleted at an AfD once this is noriced, but it should not be speedy deleted. Why? because often enough it turns out that an articel which oen editor or adim thought was not verifable can in fact be verified, adn the delay in the proposed deletion process, or the delay and discussion at WP:AFD leads to that verification being provided. And I never said that I would decline an expired prod as a matter of course. if a page haas sat through the requisite time period with a prod tag, and no one has troubled to remove it, or improve the articel 9which i would verify in the history, i would delete it unles I could myself improve it to cure the problem and was willign to do so on the spot. Prod and speedy are quite different, and for good reason, IMO. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I would declien an expired prod, but it was a mistaken one. Note also that if an articel about a nonexistant book can be confirmed as a hoax (with good supporting evidence) trhen it can quite rteasoanbly be spedy deleted as vandalism. The poitn is, speedys must be obvious -- if ther is any significant question that research might change the outcome, then speedy deletion is the wrong process. (Note that if soemone creates a bad ISBN, a few clicks will show it to be bogus, which is a good start on confirming a hoax, because ISBNs link to a search page). DES ^(talk) 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have missed the point of my proposed/DRAFT protocols (see Warn-book for the one currently under discussion) ... their purpose is to S-L-O-W D-O-W-N the speedy deletion process a bit ... with a WP:NPP editor's comments on both the author's Talk page and the article's Talk page, admins would be better prepared to either (a) delete it "on sight," or (b) change the CSD to a PROD in order to provide more time ... BTW, your comment,

"if a minor rewrite would make an apparently NPOV stub out of such a article ... I would normally remove speedy tags or restore articles in such cases if they came to my attention."

is what gave me the impression that you would decline a PROD under identical circumstances to a CSD for an article that lacked WP:V ... my mistake for the inference, but that was my impression of an editor in so much of a hurry that they don't even proofread their own comments. :-)

As for "confirmation" of a bogus ISBN, you are making the assumption that a NPP editor or admin would actually take the time to look beyond that search page to see that the ISBN provided is in fact for Some Other Book, e.g., ISBN 1-59698-028-1 is not the correct one for Waxwings, although it is the correct ISBN for The Truth About Muhammad, a book by a completely different author ... under my protocols, that part of the hoax would be documented in the comments on both talk pages before the article is tagged for CSD, and I think that even you would be willing to "delete on sight" in such a situation.

Thnx for the tip on {{db-vandalism}} as the appropriate tag for hoax articles, BTW ... I'll add mention of it as an alternative to the different CSD choices in my DRAFT protocols. —68.239.79.82 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had read only the summery on this page -- now having read your full page, it looks pretty good to me. I am always dubious when people propose a new db-template that is implicitly a new CSD as well, and it seemed to me as if that was what you were doing.

Note that, IMO, only a clearly confirmed hoax should be tagged as vandalism.

You are of course correct that a lazy editor won't bother to follow an ISBN link if the rest looks plausible, but then if it looks plausible so that no one suspects a hoax, a db-hoax wouldn't help anyway. if someone once suspects a hoax, following the ISBN links (if any are present) will help to confirm it. If the editor is too lazy to do that, i don't much trust his judgment in determining whether something is a hoax or not anyway.

I am indeed willing to delete well-confirmed hoaxes, and if I am unsure to do some checking myself. DES ^(talk) 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

just wanted to mention that invalid ISBNs are rather common in the real world due to error, & are not proof of a hoax. Librarians see them rather often--maybe 1 in a thousand books. don't assume fraud on this basis alone. DGG 00:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy that ... and if it's not a hoax, and the correct ISBN can be located, then of course I would fix it and MOVE ON ... just commenting that it's one of the things that should be checked in a suspect article, and that Too Many editors don't bother to verify them often enough. —68.239.79.82 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I have a real problem with my submission being deleted. Whilst I understan the delation - becuase I am just learning hw to use Wikipedia, it really concerns me that the 'not just for profit' page has been redirected to 'not for profit' - the exact opposite of 'not just for profit'. I would prefer the world not to understand not just for profit than be mislead by what is currently happening. I am really concerned about this. Where do we go from here? I would really appreciate your help to get this resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Lawn (talk • contribs) 10:49, 26 May 2007

Answered on their talk page. —68.239.79.82 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In this edit you placed a no-context tag on a redir, which is clearly a mistake. Assuming that you intended to tag this version just prior to the redirect, I agvree that this is a somewhat dubious articel, but the mentiosn of The Global Reporting Initiative, and Institute 4 Sustainability offer IMO sufficient context that this shouldn't have been speedy deleted on those grounds.

Later you left a msg for that article's creator, saying in part

Hello, Jim Lawn ... I encountered this newly created article while performing New Page Patrol or Counter Vandalism Unit activities.

In my opinion it lacks sufficient Attribution to satisfy the Notability criteria for one of the subject areas, e.g. WP:BIO, WP:BAND, WP:INC, WP:WEB, etc.

Please remember that lack of Attribution is not generally a reason to speedy delete an articel, although it may well be a reason to use {{prod}}. In particular, lack of Attribution is NOT a reason to use an A7 or a no-context tag. DES ^(talk) 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnx for the comment, DES ... yes, it was the earlier version, and as I explained further along on that article's talk page:

The redirect occurred during the time that I was putting boilerplate warnings on the author's talk page and this talk page as per my DRAFT protocol for DB-NOCONTEXT ... and I was also interrupted by them leaving a message on my User page instead of my Talk page (I had to move and answer it) ... since I was Too Tired to deal with this any longer (and Some Other Editors seemed to be involved as well) I put the CSD tag on the page so that at least one would be there if it was restored/reverted/whatever.

... and the "boilerplate" I left on the author's talk page should have said "CSD or PROD", which is the direction I was leaning in this case.

The whole point of my protocols is to add time ... and in the time that it took me to add the boilerplates to the author's and the article's talk pages before actually tagging it, Some Other Editor had already come along and done the redirect! Since I figured that that would also be reverted, I thought that leaving a CSD (even if an incorrect one) would bring more attention to a potential problem than a PROD, which could have been removed without fault by the the author (who I assumed was a newbie because they had complained on my User page instead of my Talk page), and a casual observer (who did not take the time to examine the edit history) would have been unaware of any previous controversy.

But all of this is moot as I decided to walk away from this one, anyway. :-)

Yes, I am well aware that lack of WP:A is not grounds for a CSD, but it does raise a flag that a PROD or AFD may be necessary, and I'm trying to make boilerplates that are useful for alerting and documenting that concern at the earliest possible stage, regardless of which route is taken ... it's an alternative to the Serious Bad Karma of a premature CSD with no audit trail, and having the author recreate because they don't know what happened ... my hope is that an admin will see more than just a CSD tag and a DB-WARN on the author's talk page, and maybe change it to a PROD to allow more time instead of immediately doing the delete "on sight" because they are in a hurry and just "take the word" of the tagger.

I've identified several places where mistakes in judgment can be made and misunderstandings can occur, and hopefully experiences like this will raise the consciousness of both admins and NPP editors to slow down, step back, and consider alternatives, so in spite of the lack of constructive feedback, I'm just plowing ahead and making corrections based on the mistakes I make ... this one will serve as one of the examples that I can add to the discussion for usage on User talk:68.239.79.82/Warn-nocontext ... I'm happy to say that in several cases, authors have added sufficient WP:A within just a few hours of the "I intend to tag this" warning so that I have gone back and removed CSDs or PRODs that I had placed on their articles, whereas without the protocols and boilerplates (which for some admins constitute an implied HANGON), the articles might have been deleted before the author could have responded.

The point is that telling the author, admins, and other NPP editors, "I think that this looks like a CSD/PROD candidate," and then waiting a few hours before actually tagging an article, is a Good Thing ... using these protocols would have avoided the bad feelings that led to my hasty block (and its even hastier lifting) a few weeks ago. —68.239.79.82 04:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi 68, thanks again for the time and effort you put into this. I'm moving slowly on the issue for a couple of reasons:

1. Paul is obviously a newbie and may not yet be familiar with policies, or even how to respond to other editors' comments.
2. He appears to be editing from Hong Kong which must make for some seriously funky time-zone differentials.

After further reviewing his four articles I'm pretty sure that AfD is the way to go; I don't think a Speedy Delete would be approved by most admins because notability has been at least marginally established. One of my other concerns at this point is that he has edited several other articles to include references to him or his book. In one he inserted his name as a "prominent author". Regardless of the AfD process, it looks like there's going to be a bit of cleanup invloved.

At this point I plan to revert his edits to other articles, but give him a couple of days to respond to our comments before I proceed with the AfD's. It seems that you're somewhat experienced in this area, whereas I've only handled one COI (and it was a friggin' nightmare); any advice or tips you can offer would be much appreciated, and I'll be watching this page. Thanks again! Doc Tropics 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wassup, Doc? :-)

Well, after reading some of my posts and essays, you probably realize that I'm just a WikiGnome trying to "put lipstick on pigs" and eliminate WP:VSCA when I encounter it (I gave up creating/expanding articles when I abandoned my WP:USERNAME) ... I'd rather spend my time finding ISBNs on Amazon.com and adding {{cite book/news/web}} templates to replace explicit ELs than cleaning up after nuggets (please note my recent edit to that article, BTW), but every once in a while my Evil Twin dons his Cloak of Righteous Indignation (as in this case) and I find myself embroiled in a Coyote Ugly situation with Some Other Editor over their attempts to use Wikipedia articles to add verisimilitude to their own less-than-notable career.

I've researched and contributed as much as I care to at WP:COI/N so that I can just MOVE ON with the satisfaction I've done my best to present arguments for why the current versions of the articles have failed to satisfy the WP:N criteria for books, companies, and biographies because of their lack of WP:A from WP:RS published articles about them ... I'm extremely disheartened by the "we'll just take their word for it" attitude that I feel lowers the overall credibility of Wikipedia articles, which is one of the main reasons why I have chosen to work from the periphery as an anon ... the only reason I've devoted as much energy to this affair as I have is because it has given me an opportunity to tweak my boilerplates for the DRAFT protocols to ameliorate the "hastiness" of the speedy deletion process.

There are over six billion people alive in the world today, and over half of them are under the age of 25^{[citation needed]} ... I'm frightened by the realization that the vast majority of the people with the resources and (dubious) skills to contribute to Wikipedia have never made fire from scratch (something that's "so simple, a caveman can do it!") unless they were involved in Scouting or the military at some time in their lives ... for every Pulrich whose edits are exposed and purged, there are probably a dozen who go undetected, and the numbers will only increase as we continue to lower the bar for WP:V by turning a blind eye to their disregard of WP:PG with the dismissive "they just don't know any better," while the resources that we expend raising their consciousness is at the expense of vigilance for other offenders.

After my recent (unwarranted) blockage, I am acutely sensitive to WP:BITE, but I also lack the patience to deal with editors who feel that their Ph.D.s and credit cards somehow make them superior to people who raise and slaughter their own food every day ... "I've published a book and have a patent, so I deserve an article in Wikipedia!" ... let them have their 15 minutes of notoriety that will go completely unnoticed by 99.999% of the world's population ... I'm going back to fixing redlinks and figuring out which link on a disambiguation page is the correct one to use as a replacement for the current one in an article ... it's a thankless Dirty Job, but for me, it's a mush less self-destructive pastime than promiscuous sexual activity or recreational drug abuse. (Can you say, "codependent enabler?" :-)

Sorry for the <flame>, but I needed to let off some steam, and I'm reluctant to engage in WP:NPP when I'm in This Mood, which is how we came to be having this dialog in the first place ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 04:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(you wrote): Hello ... I stumbled across the first of these the other day on WP:NPP as a stub that I was about to tag for WP:CSD#A7:

• Stitch 'n Bitch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Debbie Stoller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Bust (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two.

As you know, I've got a "thang" about WP:A, especially when I see absolutely no WP:RS whatsoever, just ELs to the subject's website, but before I waste any more time with this, I figured I'd better get the opinion of an admin ... I'm currently up to my cojones in the feces arising from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich (which is a "kill it before it grows" situation), but these are legacy articles, created before we became quite so anal retentive about WP:Verifiability, i.e., requiring multiple WP:RS secondary sources.

I mean, I can hear the arguments already:

1. Bust (magazine) has been published since 1993, so it is notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
2. Debbie Stoller is the publisher of notable magazine, so she is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
3. "Stitch 'n Bitch" has been the subject of multiple books by a notable author, so it is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources

So, should I simply try to forget that I ever saw these articles and just MOVE ON? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you whether you want to propose deleting these or not. But, it seems to me that if it is indeed true that "Many famous and influential women have appeared on the cover [of Bust], including Björk, Cher , Sandra Oh, and Gwen Stefani." that alone would make it notable -- sales figures are also relevant. I suspect that additional sources could well be found, and you might do better to find and insert them than to propose deletion. Stitch 'n Bitch looks sourced enough to prevert deletion on those grounds as it stands. As for Debbie Stoller I'll bet additional sources could be found, a well-selling author and editor of a significant professional magazine is surely notable. Certianly none of these is a valid A7 -- note that lack of sources is never enough reason for an A7 -- and I think i eould vote "Keep" on each in an AfD. Any statement in an article that, if sourced would show notablility is enough to prevent an A7, whether the sources have been inserted or not. DES ^(talk) 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DES, that any assertion prevents A7. If you think these should be deleted, we have a reasonably good and fair procedure for doing this , where it can be discussed. But I think the articles will stand. For snb, refs 1 & 2 are good, and 3 possibly--I don't trust the Independent very far., Stoller will fail if there are any reviews for the books, and Bust will also fail if there are any discussions--there's also various publishing related material to be added. I am not sure about whether "prominent people on the covers" will stand as a reason, but circulation figures are relevant. Published since 93 doesn't make it notable by itself, but it helps a little. I agree with DES, there will be a better use of your efforts to edit than to engage in the sort of AfD this seems likely to be. DGG 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnx to DES and DGG for the quick replies ... I'm still having trouble getting my head around unsubstantiated assertions (simply stating "they did such-and-such" without any attempt at WP:RS to back it up), but that's probably because of my (apparently mistaken) assumption that it is an author's responsibility to provide WP:A ... as a Wikignome, I take on some of it every time I find and add an ISBN, but maybe I should be more pro-active in that regard, and less of a deletionist.

BTW, that "if sourced" comment really put things into a New Perspective for me (D'oh!), and hopefully my altered perception will be permanent and have a positive impact on my future actions ... now I understand what I had previously thought was an inappropriately trustful attitude. ("The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." --Gin Rummy)

Sometimes the goals of "protecting the integrity" and "improving the quality" of articles seem to be in conflict with each other (at least for me), and it can be hard to change gears when a collection of newbie WP:VSCA edits has pushed me Too Far into the former mode, so I'm not as charitable as I might have been on another occasion ... FYI, I'd already decided to Walk Away from this one since I asked for your opinions. :-) —68.239.79.82 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to have misunderstood at what point you were, and were not, considering a speedy for these articles. Yes, there is conflict between the policies of letting anyone add content and preserving the integrity of the project. If we were to require that every new article satisfy WP:V by providing sources from the first, there would be less unsourced junk, but also less good content, for many good articles started as unsourced stubs. Note that we are now very nearly applying that rule to biographical articles, at least ones that have any negative content, and look at the multiple bitter disputes that causes. Please remember that speedy deletions are supposed to be uncontroversial, in that pretty much any unbiased experienced editor would agree with any such deletion. It is fairly easy and objective to say that no claim of notability has been made, and this gets rid of the ton of "My friend John is a great guy" rubbish. It is harder to say when something is sufficiently sourced, and often fairly easy to add sources to an unsourced article or stub. The policy could be debated, and may eventually be changed, but that is the trade-off that has consensus at the moment. DES ^(talk) 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub - an "unbiased experienced editor" tags it for CSD, an admin deletes it, and that's when the excrement impacts the ventilating unit (to be diplomatic) ... the nugget flames the tagger and/or admin, then either leaves forever in disgust or else becomes a WikiVandal, to point out the two extremes of a Really Negative impact. (Note how User:Pulrich (talk · contribs) has been adding {{Notability}} and {{Unreferenced}} tags to articles about other books and authors since his contributions were taken to COI/N and multiple AfDs.)

My protocols are an attempt to avoid the Serious Bad Karma from what is undeniably "uncontroversial" to "experienced" editors, but frustratingly arbitrary and capricious to inexperienced ones ... the sources need to be found, and if nothing is done to raise their consciousness about the need for them ("Please use your own sandbox first!"), then it (a) makes extra work for the WikiGnomes and (b) does nothing to prevent similar situations from arising again, i.e., they do not become "experienced" editors, they just have a Bad Experience.

The language of the most recently created boilerplates (being used in updates to the older ones) stresses the "please include some WP:A" over the "it smells bogus and doesn't belong" attitude projected by the the "tag it, warn them, and MOVE ON" paradigm we have been using ... it doesn't have to begin with a CSD, although that's still the first thing that folks notice in the warnings ("They're going to delete it!").

Witness how many times an admin restores an article and immediately takes it to AfD, either to "reinforce the learning experience," or to prevent other NPP editors from harassing them while they struggle up the learning curve ... even an immediate PROD after a restoration can have a negative impact on a fragile ego, so I'm trying to forestall the need for a restoration in the first place.

I'm just going to ignore the whole issue of insufficient WP:A in legacy articles and focus on the problem of dealing with the inexperienced editors and their First Contact experience ... when I began my career as a software engineer in the 70s, we worked with a "you find it, you fix it" paradigm, i.e., "don't bother the original coder when you discover a bug in their algorithm," so I really don't have any problem with applying that attitude to Wikipedia today ... I think that my energy would be better utilized in trying to make the "iron fist in a velvet glove" both a little more tactile and little less clumsy.

There's a subtle gap between the attitudes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," and "Ending is better than mending" (Brave New World) ... the trick is in being able to recognize the difference between "damaged" and "broken" ... one should be repaired, and the other should be discarded ... anyone can make the Wrong Choice, especially when there no established benchmarks to guide them. —68.239.79.82 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that many editors, particularly those who are either inexperienced on wikipedia, or biased toward their particular articles or both, will raise a huge fuss and be very unhappy after a typical speedy delete, and it behooves us to avoid that insofar as possible. i also agree that several parts of your protocols look like good ways to reduce the chances of that. My quibbles are with a) which articles you choose to use the protocols on, and b) the wording of some of your prototype warnings/notices, and what they might imply about your future choices, or what they might teach others. Specifically:

1. You selected three articles to mention in your "windmills" msg; IMO all of these should probably be improved and kept, rather than deleted, and the improvements shouldn't be too hard. That you seemed strongly in favor of deleting these, but weren't sure that others would approve, suggested that your view of where the line between damaged and broken lay was rather far from my view. (By the way on wikipedia, i would say that mending is generally better than ending, except for the hopelessly unmendable. Not everyone would agree.)
2. Your prototypes, such as User talk:68.239.79.82/Warn-bio, suggest that an absence or perhaps a severe insufficiency of sources is a good reason for a speedy delete. (specifically, the passage "In the opinion of many New Page Patrol editors, articles with absolutely no sources (or only links to unreliable ones like MySpace, Google, and Amazon.com) are prime candidates for speedy deletion on that basis alone." I don't know if that is the consensus on NPP, it isn't the general consensus as far as I know, and it isn't what WP:CSD says. I presume it is your view, or you wouldn't have written it. But IMO articles whose main problem is a lack of sources should be fixed by finding and adding sources, and only if those sources can't be found should it be AfD'd (not speedy deleted). Now you have implied in a couple of specific cases that you wouldn't actually tag for speedy articles whose main problem is a lack of sources. Even if that is so, your prototype msgs give the impression that you would, and may teach others that doing so is appropriate, and having admins remove speedy tags placed in good faith by people who have mis-understood the CSD can also cause the fecal pellets to impact the rotary air impeller.

Those issues were what I was mostly addressing, or intending to address; I quite agree that easing the first contact of new editors who in good faith add an article that needs to be deleted (by whatever process) is a Very Good Thing^TM, and that your protocols are not a bad method to achieve this end, overall.

I might add that another reason why an admin may start an AfD on something previously speedied is that if deleted via AfD, its recreation is thereafter a G4 shoot-on-sight, whereas previously speedy deleted stuff must still be reconsidered on its merits, if any. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll freely acknowledge that my evil twin is an unrepentant deletionist, but with my recent attitude adjustment, my #1 priority has become going back and changing things like "are prime candidates for speedy deletion on that basis alone" to "raises a flag that may initiate a PROD or an AfD nomination," and similar less hostile, non-aggressive modifications in all of the templates, most of which are copy&pastes, and some of which have not been amended as the later versions have been.

BTW, I already had my wrists slapped a few weeks ago for putting WP:CSD#G4 tags on recreations after CSD deletions, so I'm aware of the distinction now, and it's one of the things I intend to add near the beginning of the protocols for the benefit of other NPP nuggets who (like me) may have either missed it the first time, or else failed to retain it in long-term memory ... another painful lesson was that although it is forbidden for the author to remove a CSD tag, it is not forbidden for them to remove a PROD. (That experience led to the inclusion of the {{Drmspeedy2}} within a comment field as part of the 1st Step warning boilerplates.)

Please forgive my cosmetic edits to your comments, but that kind of Adrian Monk behavior is sometimes hard to control, and I've learned that it's better to indulge it in situations like this than try to restrain it ... it's Mostly Harmless, after all, but if suppressed for Too Long, it tends to erupt inappropriately on some other occasion. —68.239.79.82 18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, i think those changes should make your protocol pages very useful indeed. I trust I haven't come across as hostile or aggressive in any way. And I don't mind your "cosmetic edits" -- I am a poor typist, and don't always proof talk page notes carefully. I have rather fallen out of the habit of using wiki-numbered lists in talk page discussion -- they can get broken too easily by later responses, i have found. Although they do look better when they are working. DES ^(talk) 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for a CSD A7 here. I think if you feel these articles should be deleted, then going to AfD would be the best route. From what I see, I would probably choose to keep these articles, since there are multiple reliable sources that could be found on each subject. In any case, it's your choice here--either you can help source the articles and make them more compliable with Wikipedia policy, or you can send this to AfD and plead your case for deletion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy was no longer an option for beau coup reasons; I just mentioned that in the context of the earlier stub of the first one when I encountered it on NPP (sorry for the confusion) ... the query was about the prospects of an AfD for any of them based on lack of WP:A, but since I originally asked, I have decided to just Walk Away from this one. :-) —68.239.79.82 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)