|
Challenge the Speedy Delete Gordon Laird (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The article was deleted before I had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate the noteworthyness of David Lochhead Gordon Laird (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note attempt at discussion with deleting admin here which seems to have directed the user straight here rather than trying to resolve this, either by explaining to the user why it would meet the speedy criteria regardless of the material posted on the user talk page, or by restoring it for further work. Just a note since this seems to be the opposite of the normal position where the nom seems reluctant to discuss with the deleting admin. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a straightforward obit. Endorse deletion. The material at the talk link above may be article-worthy, but a lot of it sounds like internal-only publication without external recognition. Pegasus' bureaucratic dismissiveness, is disappointing though. Splash - tk 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Tone was obit-like and didn't establish notability enough to escape an A7, and certainly nothing that would have passed WP:PROF or survived an AfD. Nominator seems to be saying he has additional notability which would have been added if the article had been up longer, but WP doesn't work like that. If you have something you'd like us to consider that wasn't in the article, bring it up here so we can fully consider it: otherwise, we have to go by what's in the article, and that frankly isn't much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore -- Gordon Laird writes that the article was speedy deleted before he had a chance to "demonstrate its noteworthiness". Surely, in this case, restoration should be pro forma? If a wikipedian says they were making a good faith attempt to respond to the speedy tag, surely they deserve a reasonable chance to respond? It sounds like this opportunity was not provided in this case. Once it has been restored, if readers feel it doesn't merit inclusion on the wikipedia, then let them instantiate an {{afd}}. Frankly, I agree with 81.104.39.63 that the closing admin's reply fell very far short of WP:CIV and WP:BITE. Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and trout-slap closing admin for not being more civil when asked to discuss the deletion. To reply to a fully articulated and rational request for review with nothing more than "Wikipedia:Deletion review(signature)" demonstrates how much effort went in to reviewing the reasonable assertion of notability which is all that is required to pass speedy. The criteria for speedy deletion is very much purposefully narrow in scope as the very concept of deletion without discussion undermines our philosophy of consensus. We have deemed that in certain narrowband cases that it is necessary, and it has therefore received carte blanche consensus already for those specific cases. For administrators to expand that criteris to "that which is not likley to pass AfD" is disappointing and blatantly wrong. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Five reasons why it was wrong: First, just as Jerry says, clear misunderstanding of WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy: that WP:CSD A7 merely requires some show of notability which was clearly present as Professor of Systematic Theology at the Vancouver School of Theology. Second, it was deleted only two minutes after it had been inserted, which is in violation of the general policy of letting articles develop. Third, a good faith request of an author for time to expand--especially when additional information bearing on notability is provided-- should generally be granted, just as Geo Swan says it--in fact I would support making this explicit policy. Fourth It should in any case be responded to more graciously, even if denied. Admins are required to be willing to discuss their actions. And finally, fifth. the article and the supporting material provided about his publications makes in fact a fairly good prima fascia case for notability, and it might well pass AfD if rewritten to change it from the tone of an obit. Like Jerry, I am amazed that not just the deleting admin but some others here do not understand the difference between speedy and afd. DGG (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn As someone that was consulted by the author during the deletion process. I've looked at his sandbox and Gordon Laird has made some excellent improvements to the article that will hopefully be uploaded soon. It has great potential, and David Lochhead is a notable figure, so this is why I support its restoration. PeterSymonds | talk 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. A good-faith editor creates a substantial article, clearly still a work in progress, and it's deleted after less than 5 minutes by an admin who isn't even willing to discuss the matter. As for the endorses, none of them seem to bear any relation to WP:CSD. A posthumous emeritus professorship seems to be a claim of importance or significance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I boldly userfied this. The article was wrong in several ways including tone and sourcing, but it's Gordon Laird's first article, so let's not WP:BITE too hard. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on improving the article at User:Gordon Laird/David Lochhead --Gordon Laird (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
