User talk:DGG/Archive 184 May 2022

Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite
Really, this should not have been accepted in the state it was! Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All paintings by famous artists are notable. The article has RSs that show notability, and is a basis for further editing in mainspace. It's there, where people can see it, and much more likely to be improved  than in draft space. Yes, it's only a stub, but we settled 15 years ago that stubs were acceptable in mainspace.  The only criterion for approving a draft is that it is likely to be accepted at AfD. Not even certainly accepted, but just more likely than not, which I interpret as   66%. A few years ago, I was looking for 90%, but the consensus is clearly about 66%, and in such things i consider myself obliged to follow consensus, not my own preferences.
 * I came to AfC to help articles get accepted if possible; I strongly supported 's work at requiring AfC as a requirement for new users, because at least half of the new articles they write will surely or likely be deleted at AfD.  And if you look at my stats, you will see that unfortunately I find it necessary to delete about 5 times as many articles and drafts as I can rescue.
 * I see that you noticed it and greatly improved it.Would you have been as likely to so if it had been left in Draft.?
 * I'd be very willing to continue the discussion here or elsewhere,  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

=May 2022=

Articles for deletion/University of York Music Press
Hi DGG -- Could I possibly ask you to take a look at this AfD on an independent music publisher, University of York Music Press. Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering
I disagree, rather strongly, with your action on 1 May in moving this article to draft space as still not ready for article space. I haven't read through the long history of the article in detail, but the article has been around for about ten years, almost as long as the Institute has existed, and appears to have had a long history of non-neutral promotional content. There has recently been a rough consensus that draftification is not the way to deal with problematic articles that have been in article space for a long time. There has now been a stub created in article space that says that the institute exists. The stub doesn't need to be there, because it doesn't have enough content to be a separate article, and could be redirected to Harvard University. However, I have tagged the stub article and the lengthy draft that was once an article to be merged, with judgment. If you or someone else really don't think that the institute should have its own article, an AFD is a better idea than moving it to draft space. (As you can see, trying to move it to draft space just caused a content-free stub to be created.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is more than a very rough consensus on how to handle these. I think that's because there is really no satisfactory method. I've tried at a various times everything I could think of, and no matter how I deal with them someone always objects that I'm following the wrong proceedure. (Though I agree that draftifying an old article written only by someone who hasn't been around for years is not a likely way of getting it improved by the original contributor-- one of the key reasons for trying to avoid a backlog is to have some chance at the original contributor still being around. And this is a particular problem near the end of the academic year, because the original contributor in a course is extremely unlikely to look at the article again--they're almost exclusively concerned with meeting the course requirements, not ours.
 * But in my field, I am almost the only editor who does regularly improve drafts, sometimes just to the point that they'll  just pass afd, sometimes to the level of a fairly decent article. I try to keep up with them just before they're deleted, but I have been increasingly failing to keep up, and the only way I can manage is by progressively narrowing the field I look at. I am also almost the only editor who look occasionally at NPP for the accepted articles, not just the ones stlll not tagge(or at least, i was--I haven't been able to get there for many months) In either case, I do not concern myself with whether the right procedure was followed--I look at the article or potential aericlw
 * I have always been much more concerened with results, not procedure. All I try to do in my own work is not to deliberately violate settled policy, but I interpret this in the spirit of IAR. If I accept something wrongly, AfD willl deal with it. None of my decisions are every final. snd I know I will sometimes make errors, and I try to ackledge my mistakes when pointed out. (To avoid confustion, let me reiterate that this is not the same as how I advise other people--if I give advice, I give safe orthodox advice--I consider anything else irrresponsible, and likely to harm newcomers. )
 * The real problem is how to get less-than-satisfactory drafts of potentially notable subjects accepted into WP. We do not have a solution for this. There are good reasons to object to every procedure that has been suggested. If we finda good way, it will be by experimenting, and I think I have enough experience and good will from others to do it safely.
 * But I don't in the least take exception to your comment here. In fact, I rely upon such comments from other experienced and respected editors such as yourself as a way of re-examining if I am doing things right. We need mutual informed criticism.  I can't examine the substance of this article today, but I'll look again tomorrow . DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)