Proposal talk:Speedy deletion - 24 hour pause for some articles
If it is not obviously total rubbish and can wait then it should be proposed for deletion giving it a week to be sorted. This will just add another unecessary and bewildering level to the process. We are already strongly encouraged not to speedy anything that does not meet the criteria. This proposal may have the opposite to the desired effect of making editors go for a "soft speedy" when they should prod tag. This does not really help. Also in the end so what if some marginal rubbish is deleted. We are being overloaded with rubbish all the time and are already extremely inclusive. Polargeo 23:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The original issue went beyond overfast deletion of new unsourced articles and towards general grouchiness towards new editors, which won't be fixed by any means other than fixing the generally grouchy wiki-atmosphere, which is impossible. Also, we don't need more unsourced stub articles. My proposal is to instead require any user's first one or two new articles to go through the Articles for Creation wizard (w:WP:AFC) where it would get reviewed by an experienced editor who would discuss it one-on-one with the newbie, explaining the sourcing requirements and so forth. In other words: raise the standards for new articles instead of lowering them. 69.228.171.150 10:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- This proposal isn't about lowering the standards for new articles, merely about not judging good faith ones until people have finished an editing session. I know the new page patrol process well enough not to save a new article until I believe it can survive new page patrol. But that isn't everyone's editing style, that's why this would reduce the amount of conflict and complication at new page patrol. If good faith contributors are only considered for deletion after 24 hours then some articles that currently get deleted would not be, and hopefully some driven away newbies would stay and continue editing. WereSpielChequers 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any stats to back up how many newbies feel like this is a problem? I don't agree with this at all. The entire basis for this proposal is based on a controversial "project/experiment" on the English wikipedia and as such I think its a terrible foundation on which to build policy change. If templates need to be cleaned up to be friendlier, so be it. If certain admins are too quick to delete, address that on an individual basis. But making it easier to keep unsourced articles on wikipedia longer doesn't benefit anyone. If someone is going to just create something with 1 edit and walk away it seems like they're not terribly invested in it. If things are being tagged within seconds they should see that and attempt to address it. if they aren't going to address it then, not even with a hang-on tag, 24 more hours isn't going to benefit anything.If the new page patroller and the deleting admin can't see a hint of appropriateness for an article with that name on the encyclopedia and it should be there then it was written very very badly.--Crossmr 00:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are things that we don't know about the size of the problem, and therefore how much this proposal would help our problem of Wikipedia having become less welcoming to newbies. In particular of the newbies who save a one sentence article, have it immediately tagged for deletion and then stop editing; How many would have continued editing their article if it hadn't been templated for deletion? and, How many of those articles would after a few more edits have become things that belonged on Wikipedia? We do know that Wikipedia still attracts a couple of hundred thousand new editors every month, we also know that only a tiny proportion of those are becoming regular editors. Perhaps a question to former users might answer that, but I'm cautious about the validity of survey data as opposed to observational data in this context. My opinion is that this proposal would make things less bitey for article creators, and therefore drive away fewer good faith contributors. How much difference it would make is hard to calculate, and I certainly wouldn't claim it as the total solution, but I do consider it could be part of the solution. BTW this is neither a new problem or just a newbie one - en:Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode 34 gives an example from September 2008. WereSpielChequers 14:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS Having 24 hours as the pause period is entirely arbitrary and could easily be refined if we had some data as to lengths of newbie editing sessions. Or alternatively we could change the proposal now if some of the opposers would be more comfortable with say 6 hours. WereSpielChequers 15:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your "experiment" has already driven away 6 good faith editors. not only do we not know the size of the problem, we don't even know if there is a legitimate problem that extends beyond one article writer. We know absolutely nothing from your "experiment" and we can't run around proposing policy based on that. I see zero basis for making any changes to policy. If templates are bitey, reword them. Its not an excuse to find a way to givie some people at least 24 hours to keep an article on wikipedia no matter what.--Crossmr 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS Having 24 hours as the pause period is entirely arbitrary and could easily be refined if we had some data as to lengths of newbie editing sessions. Or alternatively we could change the proposal now if some of the opposers would be more comfortable with say 6 hours. WereSpielChequers 15:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are things that we don't know about the size of the problem, and therefore how much this proposal would help our problem of Wikipedia having become less welcoming to newbies. In particular of the newbies who save a one sentence article, have it immediately tagged for deletion and then stop editing; How many would have continued editing their article if it hadn't been templated for deletion? and, How many of those articles would after a few more edits have become things that belonged on Wikipedia? We do know that Wikipedia still attracts a couple of hundred thousand new editors every month, we also know that only a tiny proportion of those are becoming regular editors. Perhaps a question to former users might answer that, but I'm cautious about the validity of survey data as opposed to observational data in this context. My opinion is that this proposal would make things less bitey for article creators, and therefore drive away fewer good faith contributors. How much difference it would make is hard to calculate, and I certainly wouldn't claim it as the total solution, but I do consider it could be part of the solution. BTW this is neither a new problem or just a newbie one - en:Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode 34 gives an example from September 2008. WereSpielChequers 14:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any stats to back up how many newbies feel like this is a problem? I don't agree with this at all. The entire basis for this proposal is based on a controversial "project/experiment" on the English wikipedia and as such I think its a terrible foundation on which to build policy change. If templates need to be cleaned up to be friendlier, so be it. If certain admins are too quick to delete, address that on an individual basis. But making it easier to keep unsourced articles on wikipedia longer doesn't benefit anyone. If someone is going to just create something with 1 edit and walk away it seems like they're not terribly invested in it. If things are being tagged within seconds they should see that and attempt to address it. if they aren't going to address it then, not even with a hang-on tag, 24 more hours isn't going to benefit anything.If the new page patroller and the deleting admin can't see a hint of appropriateness for an article with that name on the encyclopedia and it should be there then it was written very very badly.--Crossmr 00:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)