- Kurt Hellmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
In my opininon, improper speedy deletion, full content of the article at the time of deletion was "Kurt Hellmer was a New York literary agent who represented, amongst others, Friedrich Dürrenmatt." (plus {{stub}}). Dürrenmatt was a clearly notable author. Since in my understanding of the publishing world, literary agents can only be considered notable if they represent notable clients, this is a case where notability is inherited. The deleting admin disagrees. This has been brought up at Village pump (policy), where at least one other admin has expressed the opinion that this was an improper speedy. Dsmdgold 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my own speedy deletion. Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the one client listed is notable, I believe my deletion of this article was proper. WP:CSD#A7 calls for the deletion of an article about a real person when it "does not state why its subject is important or significant". The fact that an agent had one notable client for an unspecified amount of time is not a statement why the subject is important or significant. Otherwise, every agent who has ever represented just one notable author, even for a day, meets the criteria, even if there is no reliable source that even mentions him or her, a conclusion I cannot support. Finally, it should also be noted that this article carried a {{db-bio}} when I deleted it. -- But|seriously|folks 02:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "every agent who has ever represented just one notable author, even for a day" has an assertion of notability and an article on them would not be eligible for speedy deletion via A7. Many such articles would be eligible for deletion through PROD or AfD. failing to meet WP:RS is not a speedy criteria. (Butseriously folks in correct, the article also carried a db-bio tag, my apologies.) Dsmdgold 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with that. Most authors and performers have agents, and most such agents receive pretty close to zero coverage outside of the specialist trade press - they're not even listed in the credits. Notability is not contagious in that way. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, there's not much of a claim there, it'd be very much helped by an addition of references or further information for why this agent is worth any more than a mention in the author's article. For biographies, we need sources that talk about the person. We can't have articles, especially about people, with no sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand BLP concerns, but I will note, for what it is worth, that Mr. Hellmer is a was. Dsmdgold 03:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I disagree that that is a claim to notability. Notability is not inherited. No, a literary agent doesn't become notable by representing somebody notable. They become notable for Wikipedia purposes when there are independent and reliable sources about them. This may or may not correspond to representing somebody notable; it likely has a strong positive correlation but is something different. GRBerry 03:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, these are arguments for AFD. A7 is just about whether something asserts importance, not whether it meets WP:N or whatever. Asserting a meaningful connection to someone notable is a claim of importance. --W.marsh 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the article as having made a claim of notability, so I continue to endorse the deletion. Most of the bulk of my text was intended to correct a misrepresentation above of what notability for literary agents is. I don't see even a claim of notability in the text of the article. GRBerry 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A claim of notability is a claim of working with or for notable people in some meaningful capacity, so there was a claim of notability. Whether that meets "what notability for literary agents" is not something CSD was intended to address, merely whether it asserts it or not. --W.marsh 17:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn – (I would note that I am the creator of the entry in question.) It was, I believe, an error to speedily delete the newly created entry. Granted, it required further sourcing to appropriately support the statement re representation of Dürrenmatt – and would, given time, have had such as well as the addition of similar statement and sourcing as to representation of Frisch, at the very least, as well as, in the fullness of time, with the potential contributions of other editors, possibly other information and sourcing as well. The act of speedy deletion, however, rather than allowing for any such possibilities instead effectively precluded them, and the statement made that the entry failed even to assert the notability of its subject is in my understanding inaccurate – to assert that an agent represented major authors is clearly, in my understanding, to have asserted notability. These matters might, I believe, sensibly have been given more than a moment of Wikipedia's time and, if necessary, further consideration in considered review. To, instead, have simply hastily nuked the freshly-created entry with the observation that no claim was made as to notability was both inaccurate and inappropriate, an error in judgement, however sincere and well intentioned on the part of But|seriously|folks , and, it seems to me reflective of a personal judgement on his part, rather than any established policy, that an assertion of notability as to an agent which took the form that the agent was consequent because his (in this case) or her authors were of recognized importance, was not, in fact, an assertion of notability at all, but, perhaps, a claim of inherited status – a position with which I strongly disagree, and which it seems to me ought be discussed, if necessary, but certainly not invoked as justification for speedy deletion. AtomikWeasel 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that unlike other deletion processes, speedy deletion is never a bar to recreation of an article in a way that addresses the reason for deletion. As such, you have always been free to recreate the article (as I implied in response to your initial inquiry to me back in July) as long as you include the missing (IMHO) explanation of significance or importance. Citations to WP:RS are preferable, but not required to get past speedy deletion. -- But|seriously|folks 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely appreciate your thought, and, as I indicated at that time, it's quite possible to locate reliable sources that refer to Hellmer as having been the agent of Dürenmatt and Frisch. The question, or the dilemma, it seems to me, is as to the question of whether or not having represented two very significant figures (and, yes, for many, many years, as is demonstrable from cites over time) establishes notability. It seems to me, as I've said, that it does, and I presume similar reasoning lies behind this long-extant entry for Harold Ober, which is cited at literary agents. If, though, the view of the community is that having represented very significant clients doesn't establish notability, but is merely a claim of heritability, as for a relative, an accountant, a cook, or gardener, rather than addressing the fact that an agent is important if they represent important clients, because that is what an agent does, and if you represent major clients you're a major agent, then WP will have very nearly no listings for any agents who aren't also notable via some other element such as also being authors or murderers. This, as I see it, is the dilemma here. AtomikWeasel 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand what you are saying, but I think it's different from what the article said. I am not taking the position that agents cannot be notable based solely on their service as agents. I am just saying that such notability is not automatic. If an agent had a long history of representing notable authors, I would think there would be an ample paper trail of this in reliable sources (such as biographies of the authors in question and perhaps articles in journals and other periodicals), so their articles should be resistant to not only speedy deletion but also AfD. Contrast this to the article in question, which connected the agent to a sole notable author and unnamed others of unknown notability, all for an unstated period of time. -- But|seriously|folks 04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been doing a bit of googling, and I believe I can source references to Hellmer's having represented Max Frisch, Friedrich Durrenmatt, and Jane Rule, at the least, and clearly for a number of years. The standard text for many years of Dürrenmatt's The Visit, for example, long listed Hellmer as his agent. In the case of Jane Rule I have a cite which refers to his having represented her as an author when publishers were resistant to publishing works with lesbianism as their subject in the early 60s. Also, it seems I can source references to Hellmer's having been a member of the German exile literary and political community in New York who fled from Nazi Germany. Is this sort of thing likely appropriate, then? I'm trying to get a handle on this. It seems to me, though, that the key issue, in a way, is whether or not representing major authors is in effect what establishes notability for an agent (so long as adequately sourced by WP criteria, of course.) AtomikWeasel 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, but allow recreation of sourced article. I would be more amenable to the idea that saying "Agent X represented Author Y" equates to an assertion of notability if it weren't what agents do, most of them unnotably. That's not to bar new information that is being found, but the deletion does not seem improper to me. An assertion of notability needs to be a little less vague, something like "X represented several of the most famous authors of his time", even, or "X was the long-time literary agent, editor, and friend of Author Y; their letters were collected and published in 2006". That sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On DGG's request, and having reread A7, I'm reconsidering my argument. The crux of the problem is that this article (using the CSD language) "states why it's important", so there's a borderline case for kicking it over to AFD instead. The counterargument is that it's such a small, unreferenced stub that there was little loss in the deletion. DGG's concern seems to be broader policy, though, and I'm in agreement that we can't let admins start applying policy based on their own views of notability. Given that there is a slim field of editors who might understand the notability argument here, associative or not, admins should be duly cautious with material in fields where their familiarity is light. This would be a more substantive dispute, and I would have substantive objections, if there had been a more substantive article to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a proper article with references showing real notability. Notability is not contagious, so the speedy was more-or-less proper. The best solution might be to userfy a copy if someone really wants to try to fix this up and make it acceptable. Xtifr tälk 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also endorse the new rewrite which should make this discussion academic, since it clearly addresses the original reasons for deletion. Xtifr tälk 11:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now, and endorse the deletion (without prejudice, per xtifr). >Radiant< 07:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, without prejudice for re-creation of the article. Admins don't have time to research CSD nominations (there are more than two thousand articles deleted from Wikipedia every day). Let's give the admin credit for doing the right thing, and acknowledge that material exists to write a more substantial article, and look forward to seeing what the improved article looks like. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe admins wouldn't have so many deletions to make if they applied what CSD actually says, rather than guessing what the result of an AFD would be? --W.marsh 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Totally out of process, simply not a speedy. Any good faith claim to importance is sufficient, & this qualifies. Speedy is not for judging notability, its for getting rid of the articles where there is no claim to notability at all. The place to judge notability is Afd, or in reasonably straight forward uncontested cases by Prod. I am amazed to see several respected eds. above willing to completely ignore the wording and the purpose of WP:CSD. I urge them to reconsiderDGG (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion being a notable someone's hired help (a literary agent, spin doctor, dentist, ob/gyn, lawyer, maid, gardener, whatever) does not cause the notability to be transfered. A <pick a job> with a notable customer/client/employer is no assertion of notability - nor could it be - otherwise every employee of Wal-Mart, McDonald's, government (any of them), is notable because they have a notable employer. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV isn't supposed to be AFD... we're only reviewing whether the deletion (in this case, a WP:CSD deletion) was appropriate. --W.marsh 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't an AFD argument. He's saying what many of us are saying: "X worked for Y" is not an assertion of notability at all, so the speedy was not out of process or inappropriate. You're welcome to disagree, but please don't mischaracterize the argument. Xtifr tälk 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one of the most basic claims of importance there is, though. "Joe plays baseball for the New York Yankees", "X is a movie staring Jack Nicholson"... a connection to a notable person or group is a basic claim of importance. It's about the claim, not whether it's actually important enough. --W.marsh 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are explicitly listed as exceptions to the general rule at WP:BIO. Trying to argue that a general rule is not a rule because we have some explicit exceptions listed somewhere is disingenuous. Notability is not generally contagious, and demanding an AfD for every article that says "Joe worked in the mailroom at Microsoft HQ" or "Bob was a greeter at Walmart" is simply unacceptable. Since an A7 deletion is invariably without prejudice, this is not a problem in practice either. I'm generally an opponent of bad A7s, and there have been lots of bad A7s in the past, but I disagree that this was one. Xtifr tälk 20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What WP:BIO says should have no impact on a speedy deletion, since WP:BIO is not a criteria for speedy deletion. At any rate, I'm not really sure what a stub article on this guy could possibly say then, to satisfy this crowd. There aren't awards for agents... the only way they're notable is by representing notable people. When it's impossible to figure out how an article on a notable person could be written such that the people wanting it deleted would be satisfied, then the people wanting it deleted would seem to have an unreasonable expectation. --W.marsh 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I'd point out that I don't think the action to speedy delete was ill-motivated, ill-advised, or outrageous -- I simply think, with all respect, that it was an error of the sort that even the best will on occasion make when making multiple, often of necessity hasty decisions -- I'm reminded of the Pentago official who, when criticized for a decision someone argued was both in error and with consequences, simply said 'I make a lot of decisions, I make a lot of mistakes.' Even if one is a good decision maker, it will happen. So, while I disagree with the decision to speedy delete, I don't mean that disagreemen to suggest in any way criticism of the admin who took that decision. That point made, granted I'm not infinitely experienced in Wiki-ways, but it seems to me it was an error in this particular case to speedy delete. A minor error, but an error, which is, I would hope, addressable by re-creating an improved entry. It does seem to me, though, that arguments some have made here that a literary agent is a mere factotum or hireling are very wide of the mark, and are analogous to saying a major league baseball player is some guy who gets paid to throw a ball around and why would that be notable? In any case, I fail to see how these are arguments appropriate here, as this is, as I understand it, a discussion as to the appropriateness of the decision to speedy delete, which hinges on whether or not a statement of the form 'Joe plays baseball for the New York Yankees' as offered in example above is in fact an assertion of notability. It seems to me that it is, and that the misunderstanding here may well stem from the fact that most folks simply assume it to be obvious that to be a major league baseball player is 'notable.' There is indeed, I would agree, an act of interpretation here, but I think that's inevitable. Personally, it seems to me to reek of promotionalism when entries begin by asserting notability by making statements that seem to 'reach': 'Bob Smith was the greatest Bozo-the-Clown performer ever, and is famous for the role.' I'm inclined to avoid that. It seems to me that, as with the ball-player example, it ought suffice to say 'X was an agent for Y and Z' [Y and Z being linked as notable, having entries]. AtomikWeasel 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as the child of a former literary agent, I think I can say with some authority that being a literary agent, even for someone notable, does not make a person particularly notable. Writers (and baseball players) are notable because they get noted; literary agents are usually behind-the-scenes people who rarely get much coverage by reliable sources. What literary agents do is important, but important is not the same as notable. Xtifr tälk 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse BsF's actions were correct. Eusebeus 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy deletion - WP:CSD#G4 Recreation of material deleted by 04:53, 29 June 2006 Quarl[6], WP:CSD#A1 Very short article (here, one sentence), and WP:CSD#A7 No assertion of importance/significance. At three valid speedy delete reasons, it's not a speedy delete record holder, but it's enough reasons to not throw it back into the waters of lake Wikipedia. If someone knows the speedy delete reasons record holder, please post on my talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No G4 on prior speedies, and A1 only applies if it also provides little or no context. So I don't think either applies here. -- But|seriously|folks 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The one sentence did not include a set of facts or circumstances that surrounded his representation of Dürrenmatt and others and certainly did not contain enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub. I assumed others would see this on reviewing the one sentence, but I should have posted my thoughts. I still think A1 applies. However, no G4 on prior speedies is correct. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A1 doesn't say anything about requiring more than one sentence. In fact it specifically says it's not about the amount of content, just the amount of context. --W.marsh 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Sorry, W.marsh, "This guy was an employee of someone famous" simply does not constitute an assertion of notability. Deor 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you have to make it personal? I take offense to that. --W.marsh 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to be personal; I was responding to your specific remark that "A claim of notability is a claim of working with or for notable people in some meaningful capacity, so there was a claim of notability," with which I disagree as a blanket statement. I'm of the opinion that what constitutes a "meaningful capacity" has to be taken into account when one evaluates whether "X works for Y" is to be construed as an assertion of X's notability, and I think Butseriouslyfolks was well within the bounds of admin discretion in concluding that in this case it didn't. I apologise for offending you. Deor 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I read it the wrong way. Thanks for understanding and meaning well. --W.marsh 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find the persistent observation that a literary agent is a hireling to be patently absurd, and the fact that it is, indeed, persistent, to be reflective of Wikipedia's limitations. That said, then, I think the overall tenor of the debate here is sufficiently anti-intellectual that I'll not attempt to re-create the entry. Let Wikipedia confine itself to its preferred topics. AtomikWeasel 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a Comp. Lit./English Lit. double major who grew up reading The New Yorker I don't think my bona fides are really an issue. Hard cases make bad law, they say, and this wasn't a good article. I doubt any general conclusions of the sort you're leaning toward can be drawn. A good article on Hellmer may well be justified, if it can be sourced. The sentence under review was not even, to my reasonably well-read eye, much of an assertion of notability. As to your argument that literary agents are notable based on their client list, I allow that as a truism, but in more precise WP:BIO terms they are notable because their client relations get written about. There are easily half a dozen agents from the mid-century period with encyclopedic significance. Hellmer may or may not be one of them, but without sources, who can tell? --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the meaning of that phrase is that to make policy on the basis of accommodating an atypical instance is wrong. As applies here, to ignore the policy on the criteria for CSD on the basis that this article that ordinarily qualifies for a pass at A7 is in fact an inadequate article, is one of the bad cases. The safer course is to follow the good law, and let this be deleted at AfD. DGG (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. G7 does not say not notable in the specialized meaning of having no independent reliable sources, it says: no assertion of importance/significance. Being an agent of a major author is an assertion of significance. It may not be enough, but that is for AfD to decide. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it an assertion of significance? Is being a greeter at Walmart also an assertion of significance? And if not, where do you draw the line? In general, being an associate, employee or business partner of someone or something notable does not by itself constitute an assertion of notability (notability is not contagious). There are exceptions, as with ball players, but those exceptions are generally well-known. In specific, most literary agents, even agents for notable people, are not notable, and do not constitute a reasonable exception. Either we force "greeter at Walmart" to be a sufficient claim to force AfD (an unacceptable choice IMO), or we admit that this was within the bounds of admin discretion and was a reasonable deletion. I see no possible middle ground. Unless you have a bright-line distinction you'd care to proffer? Xtifr tälk 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The line I draw, is as follows. If true and verifiable, would this claim, in and of itself make some one notable? Are there other examples of people who are notable for substantially the same thing. There are undoubtably notable people whose sole claim to fame is that they are agents of famous authors, musicisns, actors, etc. However, there is no one whose sole claim to fame is being a Wal-Mart greeter who is notable. To argue that because one business relationship cna cause notability then all business realtionships must cause notability is a red herring. Dsmdgold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion but without prejudice to recreation. An AfD would have been the better choice, but I think the admin was able to choose under the rules. Let's face it, a one line article is not hard to recreate, with proper assertions. I think the notability of literary agents does need asserting; some are, most aren't. Johnbod 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list on AfD per DGG. An assertion of notability was made; whether it was sufficient is a question that should be brought to the AfD. — xDanielx T/C 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As I understand it, per previous discussion, it is not inappropriate to re-create a more substantial version of the entry without waiting for a conclusion as to this particular debate. I am, therefore, doing so. AtomikWeasel 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And nicely written it is! I don't think anybody will challenge it now. This debate should probably be closed as moot. -- But|seriously|folks 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the compliment. It's appreciated. Wikipedia is a difficult process, at times, I think, for all of us, but I've enjoyed working with you, and I'd hope it has indeed resulted in a useful entry. AtomikWeasel 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very pleased you've chosen this route, in which the entire community benefits from an improved article. (I consider improving articles on the chopping block to be one of the nobler callings on Wikipedia, and practice it often.) Kudos! --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn, though it hardly matters at this point (and thanks to AtomikWeasel for making it so). I believe this case, precisely because it's a borderline case, highlights the reason why CSD A7 needs to be interpreted strictly. Specifically, the problem is that neither I, nor, judging from his comments, Butseriouslyfolks, is actually familiar enough with the subject area to properly evaluate the degree of notability that working for a particular notable author might imply for an agent. Even though some assertions of notability are clearly and indisputably insufficient ("is a greeter at Walmart") or absurd ("owns a cottage on Mars"), and as such may, in my opinion, be safely ignored, many perhaps questionable-sounding claims may in fact turn out to be evidence of actual notability, and it's not generally possible for an individual admin to judge that. In this particular case, the article did contain a claim that may have constituted an assertion of notability, even if it lacked the context that would allow a layperson to evaluate the significance of that claim, and as such it should not have been speedied. The time it would've taken to PROD the article or send it to AfD instead would hardly have been prohibitive, especially compared to what has since been spent on this debate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strict how? If we don't have clear-cut rules, how is it possible to be strict? Where would you draw the line between this and the Walmart greeter? We've had problems with A7s in the past where admins have not been familiar with the topic, but in this case, someone who is familiar with the publishing industry (like me) would not consider "X is an agent for Y" to be an assertion of notability. So what basis do you offer for claiming that it is a borderline assertion? Or do you think we should clutter up AfD with the Walmart greeter articles too? If you can't explain how to distinguish the cases, how can you ask for them to be distinguished? Xtifr tälk 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The line should be drawn where the deleting admin (or whoever tags the article) is absolutely sure that the claim could not be considered an assertion of notability. If you are indeed familiar with the industry and can say for certain that merely representing Dürrenmatt does not make an agent notable, then I wouldn't, personally, have a problem with you having deleted that article — although if I didn't know about your familiarity with the field I might. This does not change the fact that, a) Butseriouslyfolks does not seem to have possessed that kind of special knowledge that would've allowed him to make that determination with certainty, and b) even if he had, the criteria for speedy deletion are defined specifically so that admins, or those reviewing their actions, should not be required to possess such specialized domain knowledge in order to determine whether an article meets the criteria or not. This is why A7 merely requires an assertion of notability; where a possible assertion exists, putting the article on AfD (or PRODing it) will allow multiple people, hopefully including some who are familiar with the subject area, to evaluate the significance of that assertion. The difference with the Walmart greeter example is that everyone knows, and knows that everyone else knows, that being a greeter at Walmart does not make one notable; in this case, some people have suggested that being an agent for Dürrenmatt might in fact possibly make one notable, or at least that they weren't sure, which implies that this was not a valid A7 speedy — even if the deletion, at the time, might perhaps have been justifiable on other grounds (though I personally don't think it really was). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is because I have no special knowledge in the topic area that I believe articles should explicitly assert their subjects' importance / significance to survive A7. -- But|seriously|folks 02:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Firstly, thanks to those who feel that the Kurt Hellmer entry is now satisfactory. Secondly, I have a thought, or a suggestion, but please bear in mind that while I'm not a complete newbie, and have some feel for Wikpedia processes, I wouldn't for even an instant pretend to have a deep or subtle grasp of the intricacies and problems that are intrinsic to this process. As I understand it, a significant number of new entries must be rapidly screened by admins, who are volunteers, providing their time and energy to the project. They are, I believe, in most cases sincerely dedicated to the effort to build a better encyclopedia, but they are also forced to make quick decisions, with little available information. This is, I would think, inherently very difficult. Another element is that new entries, particularly if they are created by newbies, may be imperfect because they are created by newbies, and they may be hurt or offended by rapid deletion in a process that, as newbies, they little comprehend, and which feels to them like a slap in the face. Again, I don't see this as anyone's 'fault', but it's unfortunate, imho. One thought I have, and I frankly don't know if it makes sense or would help in practical terms, is if, perhaps, admins might have available a sort of limbo, an additional option, where in effect they might, by so categorizing an entry, be saying something like 'Look, this seems dubious to me, but on the other hand there might be something I don't know, or which might not be obvious, could the matter be clarified or improved.' In other words, might it make sense for an admin to have the choice of simply speedying in the present form, moving to AfD process, or selecting an intermediate option where, perhaps, bots would notify anyone who had created or contributed to the entry that it had been placed in 'limbo' status, but that they might present their thoughts to the admin who took action. I know that that's more or less possible now, by first speedying, then having dialog go back and forth between user talk and all, but might it make sense to create a structure that would offer admins doing the very difficult work involved in patrol an intermediate option, where, perhaps, they might place an entry in limbo with a sort of note, saying perhaps 'This doesn't look like an assertion of notability to me, but I'm not absolutely certain.' You folks have more experience with these issues than I, so I'm not saying this is the solution or the way to go, but I thought I'd float the thought out for consideration as it seems to me all are struggling mightily with the dilemmas posed by this sort of issue. Any thoughts? (If this suggestion makes no sense in practical terms, feel free to say so, as I say I'm not widely experienced with these considerations and it may be I'm wide of the mark – I'll take no offense, I assure you.) AtomikWeasel 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROD is an option similar to what you describe. I agree, as I think most editors would, that speedy deleting articles created by news users is generally unwelcoming (though a friendly message always helps) and if the article may potentially be notable it's best to prod it and open discussion with the creator. I think the speedy tag is used too much and the prod tag too little, though other editors might disagree there. Also note that any editor can tag an article for speedy deletion, prod an article, or nominate an article in the AfD forum; the options aren't restricted to those with admin tools. Hope that clears things up, — xDanielx T/C 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list as AFD per User:DGG's comments. Probably worth deleting, but not IMO a a speedy. Balancer 05:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
