User talk:Guy who reads a lot/Archive 1

Speedy deletions
Hi. Just to let you know I have declined your speedy deletion requests for several articles about short stories, because "Non-notablity" is not a valid CSD category for a book or short story - have a look at WP:CSD for the applicable categories -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm not very good with the deletion process (I've never done it before); but it looks like the correct process is apparently "PROD". Guy who reads a lot (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PROD is for real definites that you don't expect any objection to, but when it comes to notability, WP:AfD is probably better - maybe just nominate one short story and see how it goes? (That might give you some feedback on whether people consider them notable or not) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles have had a "notability" tag on them since last March, with no comments or changes in the intervening nine months. I'm not sure how long one usually waits between posting a tag questioning notability and proposing that the non-notable article is deleted, but it seems to me that if nobody has suggested any reason to think that they're notable over the last nine months, it's unlikely that somebody is going to pop up and suggest they're notable now. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Had they been clear PROD candidates, they wouldn't have even been tagged for notability in the first place, just PRODed - so PROD is almost certainly not appropriate now. The notability tag doesn't necessarily mean that anyone has seen them, so the next thing to do after a reasonable time is to go to WP:AfD with them, as that will bring about a discussion and a decision one way or the other - and the nine months is a reasonable time, so I'd say that's the way to go now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In essence, what you just said was that I shouldn't have put a notability tag on them nine months ago in the first place, I should have just marked them PROD. It seemed to me at the time that it would be more polite to ask people first, but next time I'll take your advice and just go immediately to PROD. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in essence I meant nothing of the sort, and I am most definitely not recommending taking such articles directly to PROD - and I'm sorry if my words sounded like I was saying that. WP:AfD is the usual deletion route, and CSD/PROD are only for deletions that really don't need any discussion or time to add sources at all - with PROD being for articles that don't meet the very strict CSD criteria. I think you were quite right to put a notability tag on them back then, allowing people indefinite time to look for sources and demonstrate notability. Given a reasonable time, which has now elapsed and during which such sources have apparently not been provided, the appropriate next step is WP:AfD, not PROD. These articles were, in my opinion, never valid PROD candidates - as it says at WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate", and these were never uncontroversial deletion candidates -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC) (updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC))
 * "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate"
 * OK, got it. Next time I'll just go directly to PROD.  Thanks.  Guy who reads a lot (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was helpful to start by tagging for notability, to give anyone a chance to provide evidence of notability. Boing! said Zebedee is also certainly right in saying that the articles don't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria. However, I don't agree with Boing! said Zebedee about PRODs. I agree with you that, when an article has been tagged for notability for ten months or so and nobody has shown any sign of taking notice, it is fairly likely that a proposed deletion will be unopposed, and so a PROD is reasonable. If the PROD is contested then you still have the option of taking it to AfD, so nothing is lost by trying a PROD, and if the deletion really is uncontroversial then you save trouble by using that route rather than AfD. I am not 100% sure what Boing! means by "These articles were, in my opinion, never valid PROD candidates". If he means "The deletions are not uncontroversial, because I don't agree that the articles should be deleted" then it is likely that Boing! will contest any PRODs that you put in place, so it will save a little time if you go straight to AfD (or give up on the deletion idea). If, however, he means "I don't think they are uncontroversial because it seems to me likely that someone else will contest them" then he may or may not be right, and a PROD might work. Either way, little will be lost by trying a PROD. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was really that I don't think the notability criteria are clear enough on things like this, especially when the author is well-known in his field, and I don't think think if taken to AfD there would automatically be a Snow delete - and I think PROD is only really applicable where you'd expect a Snow delete. I may well be wrong, but I think a multiple-AfD is the best way to go here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)