Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→On the statistical evidence: Reply |
|||
Line 397:
:::In all of those situations it's still most important to reach the right result. The right result for attack pages and copyvios is deletion - but it is important that we first determine it ''is'' an attack page/copyvio. When it is obvious we speedy delete the page, when it isn't we spend more time checking, removing attack portions/blanking suspected copyvios where appropriate before a deletion discussion. It is important that we delete copyvios as soon as we are certain that it is a copyvio but it is equally important that we don't delete things as copyvios that are not copyvios, and the same goes for every other sort of deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
::I'm going to disagree here. In almost every case, deletion is a safe result, and while it may be inaccurate in terms of the meta-decision of worthiness of inclusion, deletion is never inaccurate WRT content. This is really the burden of work issue under a different guise: it is OK to write lots of crap stubs, but people tryi9ng to clean them up have to do the research which the creators didn't bother with. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 20:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
:*Strenuously disagree with this per the above. This varies contextually; for pages that were eg. mass-produced using a script and have had no significant edits (or have even never had a manual edit), I think it's absurd to suggest that there is some requirement for a slow deliberative process. Nothing is lost by deleting an article like that, since it could be effortlessly recreated by running the script that originally created it. Articles with ''more history'' require more deliberation, but those are not generally the sorts of articles that this discussion focuses on. I'd also argue extreme caution for anything that would functionally make it harder to create large numbers of articles than to delete them; a lack of parity is a problem because it risks leading to [[WP:FAIT]] situations where people can create tons of articles that clearly fail our notability guidelines, effectively rendering those guidelines moot because no scalable way of challenging them on that exists. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
====Editors must be given a reasonable opportunity to improve an article====
| |||