Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Olaf Davis

Articles by Olaf Davis
I've made two articles, both of which have been tagged for speedy and then de-tagged: the first by a declining admin and the second by the tagger self-reverting. I suspect they're both safe now, having been formatted and categorised and so on, but shall I leave them up for the full week nonetheles? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most NPP's will consider their "work" to be done when the articles are in decent shape and evaluated against the speedy deletion criteria, so the articles are unlikely to receive much more attention now. Unless, of course, someone decides to AfD them. In which case, it would probably be better still to reveal yourself, I think. decltype (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The original challenge was prompted by a journalist who guaranteed that your article wouldn't last 7 days. So yes please leave them up for 7 days. I've decided to leave my unpatrolled article up until it reaches the back of the unpatrolled queue as there are a team of people who look at those articles.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My 'newbie' account was, created on the 19th of October. I made two articles with it:

Martyn Cundy
The original version had poor and missing formatting, and no real claim of notability. My intention was to add one quite quickly, but while my newbie persona was having trouble with link formatting the article was tagged for A7 (importance not asserted) at an age of about two minutes. I continued to edit, getting to this state before the speedy was declined and the article properly formatted by De728631. The tagger, Dmitri Yuriev, gave me a welcome template and (two) speedy warnings. De728631 left a personal comment which explained how to add wikilinks, and gave a direct suggestion for improvement to the article.

At the time the article was tagged, the A7 was probably justified. Still, the speed of the tagging did surprise me a little - I can imagine feeling rushed if I had really been trying to fathom the link syntax and hadn't had time to add sources. By the end though I felt relatively welcomed, and had a simple suggestion for what to do next. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, the speedy is unjustified. There are two independent indications of significance in the initial draft.
 * Being a professor (regardless of WP:PROF)
 * Involvement in a bluelinked project.
 * decltype (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose you're right - having founded a registered charity is surely a claim of significance. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Enoch Adeboye
For my second attempt I included a credible claim of notability right from the start. After three minutes it was tagged for G3 (obvious hoax) by Excirial, who self-reverted within a minute. Two minutes later it was tagged again, this time for A7, by Randomtime; again, they self-reverted in less than a minute. In the meantime, Excirial had found some sources and did a basic tidy-up of the article. Both users left CSD warnings on my talkpage, then removed them on reverting their tags. Neither left any other messages on the user or article talk pages.

Had I been a real new user, I would have found this episode rather more discouraging. The general impression was of tags and warnings, each containing plenty of links to lengthy policy pages to be puzzled over, flying this way and that with little human intervention. If I hadn't yet gotten used to using edit histories I'd have had no indication of why the tags kept deleting, or why my 'new messages' banner led to an apparently unchanged user talk page. In the case of the first CSD tag in particular the article had been described as vandalism, but no apology was offered. I can very easily imagine someone less persistent than myself (and genuinely new) getting very disheartened at that. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For future lookup purposes:  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)