User:Jacona/Deletion Notes


 * Common sense is very helpful. After the elimination of the SNGs for schools, athletes, etc., there are a plethora of articles that no longer meet the standard of WP:GNG. We ought to begin the task of deleting them. But why would someone choose to start the process with a slew of schools that are over 100 years old and have thousands of students? Common sense should tell the nominator that schools that are old and large are likely to to have sources. These AfDs are going to be closed as keep. Lots of time is going to be wasted. Why not use common sense and nominate articles of questionable notability instead? I guess it's like Mark Twain said ... "common sense ain't so common."


 * Recipe to follow when one encounters an article of questionable notability.

1. Take a look at the article. a. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. You don't know everything. So it's a weird sport you think may not even exist, say "Bandy". Do some searching to find out if it's real. b. If it's a subject from a country/culture far removed from yours, consider just ignoring it and moving on. What do you really know about finding sources about Korean baseball players? Apparently a lot of American editors think they do. They're wrong. Just walk on by and leave this one for either people with actual expertise or arrogant jerks.

If you can notify someone who may have an interest do so. Otherwise, there's really no point in getting involved. You can't find sources, and you can argue with arrogant, biased dumbasses, but you can't make them think. Just let them delete the Korean Babe Ruth. At least they're still on the Korean Wikipedia.

2. If it's an area in which you potentially have some understanding/expertise, look for sources. If you find them, Fix the article. If you don't, consider contacting someone you think might be better able to help. By all means, contact the article's creator and any major contributors, explain to them that reliable sources are needed, ask them to find them and offer technical help to get them in the article, or to help you determining a good redirect target. If no help is forthcoming, consider a non-controversial redirect. This is usually a good outcome. If that

3. PROD a. If the prod is removed, discuss with the de-prodding editor either

Remember, you might be wrong!

aa. improvements to referencing bb. redirects b. If that doesn't work out, consider whether you should walk away, nominate for deletion, or seek further help. Don't just immediately nominate it for deletion, at least make that discussion and give it at least (insert time here) to think about it before nominating it for deletion.

Remember, you might be wrong!

Always perform WP:BEFORE before prodding. Mentally review that BEFORE before nominating for deletion. Always check newspaper archives, and when searching, look for alternate search terms. For instance, if it's a person who sometimes goes by James and sometimes by Jim and sometimes by J.R., you need to search for all of those names before imagining you've done something. Never nominate an article for deleting without searching newspaper archives. If you can't do that, figure it out, get help, or just walk away. Never nominate an academic for deletion without clicking on scholar. Don't forget to search Google Books. Google news can sometimes help winnow the list of distracting red herrings. Consider also AbeBooks.com. I've avoided some major mistakes by looking there.

Remember, you might be wrong!

Some system gaming I've seen: User made exactly 10 edits and started deleting. Ten minutes start to finish, 2 minutes to nominate 4 articles for deletion.

Don't trust liars. See. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TenPoundHammer&diff=1090700358&oldid=1090700204. Of course, ignored requests both here, and at ANI when they made a similar false claim.

Right is better than Fast. Take time to go through all the steps above. If you have a list of many articles, process one, let it go through, then start on the next one. You will 1.) learn from the experience, 2.) be less likely to overwhelm the community; if you do, you will develop a cadre of editors who are pre-disposed to oppose you because of your ill-considered nominations (and they will be more ill-considered than if you take a more measured approach. Most of all, remember you might be wrong, we all make mistakes! Better to be wrong on one nomination than to put 30 bad nominations all at once.

Responding to A-holes who make ridiculous accusations of nefarious things with no evidence... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Columbia_High_School_(Lake_City,_Florida)&diff=1091479389&oldid=1091473200

Why lie when the truth would serve you better?