Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Atama

Atama's experience edit

In the beginning of November 2009 I took part in an experiment called "Newbie treatment at CSD", or NEWT for short. The purpose of NEWT was to determine what happens when new articles by new editors that wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion are created, would they be tagged and deleted anyway? To do so, an experienced editor would create a new account, pretend to be a new Wikipedia user, and create an article that a new editor might make (not knowing Wikipedia well) that wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion. After doing this, see what happens over the course of a week.

The account that I created for this project was JoeKole. I then proceeded to create two biographies of living people. In each case, the person had significant media coverage and didn't seem to be a subject that would be likely to be deleted through AfD, let alone speedy deletion. I kept the quality of both articles low, so as to maintain the appearance that the author was new to Wikipedia, but took care to assert notability and give evidence of this.

Mitchell Muncy

The first article I created was for Mitchell Muncy, the editor in chief of a publishing company who has appeared in various media outlets. When I created the article, I put external links in the body of the article pointing to media sources that featured him, and also created a poorly-done "References" section.

Result: The article was ignored and survived the full week. Nobody contacted JoeKole about the article. No edits of any kind were made to the article, from a bot or editor. It apparently flew under the radar and was completely ignored.

James Chatters

A few days later, I created an article for James Chatters, an archaeologist that was involved in the Kennewick man discovery. Like Mitchell Muncy before, there was numerous coverage of him. I decided on this article to not put any actual citations, but to say that he was involved in the previous discovery and mention that he was "in the news a lot".

Result: In less than a minute it was tagged for deletion per A7 (does not indicate how the subject was important or significant) even though it clearly did. I added some links to the article, pointing to news articles featuring Dr. Chatters (both local and national) and followed this up by leaving a message for the person who had tagged the message, repeating the Kennewick man info and news citations and saying he was an "important man". The only reply was to say, "Then it should be easy for you to find reliable sources to support your claim that he's 'an important man'." The editor did not, of course, check to see that such sources were already added.

I added a "hangon" tag to the article, and repeated on the article's talk page the claims of the person's importance. Another editor actually arrived at the talk page and added their agreement of the person's notability (but I'll note did not remove the speedy deletion tag). Despite all of this, the article was deleted, 2 hours after its creation.

I went to the talk page of the administrator who deleted it, but the page was semi-protected. The admin did have a talk subpage for "new users and IPs". I mentioned that the article asserted the subject's importance, and that I had made a claim for the subject's importance on the talk page of the article (and that another editor supported the claim), and that I had even added sources to back up the claims. No response.

Conclusion

From my own personal experiences in this exercise I have more empathy for new editors. I do see how a well-meaning editor, contributing content that meets Wikipedia's standards, can be ignored and/or patronized with no offers of help or advice, and to have their contributions wrongfully deleted. This isn't to disparage the hard work of new page patrollers, I have nothing but respect for them. This is also not to disparage the administrators who delete CSDs (which I maintain is critical to the encyclopedia, I've participated in the deletion of countless articles myself). But I have to agree that something is wrong with the way new editors and their contributions are treated, and that something should change to make this a friendlier environment for new editors. -- Atama頭 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The James Chatters example shows a real problem, with a speedy deletion despite 1) claims of importance and 2) multiple reliable sources. I can understand that a new editor confronted with such an experience would feel severely BITTEN. I suggest you invite the editors involved to this page so they can participate in this discussion. Regards So Why 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited them. I wasn't going to use the template but I love that thing, with the newt picture and everything. I left out names so that they can remain anonymous if they want; neither one was guilty of more than a very minor bit of biting and a mistake about CSD. -- Atama頭 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree about the "minor bit of biting" assessment. Adding claims of importance, reliable sources, a hangon-tag and an explanation and still having the page deleted and then the admin not reacting to a message - somehow I don't think we can expect a newbie to do more than that to try and stop deletion. You are an experienced user but I doubt a real newbie faced with the same circumstances would have felt very welcome after such an experience. Regards So Why 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one comment to make. That Chatters was "involved" in the discovery of Kennewick Man does not automatically make him notable; I stand by my speedy delete tag, and would tag the article as an A7 again if it ever appeared in the form in which I encountered it. If you consider that biting, then so be it, but I don't. The editor was invited to produce evidence of notability,[1] and presumably failed to do so to the satisfaction of the administrator who carried out the deletion. Overall I agree with Bagheera's comment above; CSD tagging of new articles just isn't worth the trouble. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. You don't have to prove a subject notable before saying its ineligible for A7, there only has to be a claim of importance. I'm a bit disturbed that you persist in believing that's the tag was correct, and perhaps you should avoid tagging articles for speedy deletion if you have such a misunderstanding. As far as "proving" notability, the coverage by independent sources should do that. Those sources weren't there when you applied the tag, true, but were added afterward and you were told that such coverage existed. As to the administrator who carried out the deletion, he later restored the article and said that his deletion was hasty. I didn't plan on faulting anyone in particular for their actions, and I think that at least in the case of the deleting admin it's a case of someone trying to clear out a backlog quickly and making an error. But again, if you still insist that the tag was correct, I don't know what to say except that you and I certainly differ on when it is appropriate to apply A7 and I'd suggest that your opinion also differs from the community in general. -- Atama頭 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A subject becomes notable when there are multiple, third-party, non-trivial references. On the evidence in the article, that's a fail. Two articles contain a couple of quotes by Chatters. They are not about Chatters. The third just tells us he wrote a book. Whoopee. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Atama knows what notability is. The point was that criterion A7 for speedy deletion does not require notability to be demonstrated, just a indication of any importance/significance at all. Regards So Why 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is patently obvious that Atama does not know the criteria for notability. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that I am misunderstanding 'As far as "proving" notability, the coverage by independent sources should do that'. Does Atama mean 'the coverage by independent sources does that' in which case I disagree that it does any such thing, or does Atama mean 'the coverage by independent sources must do that' in which case I fully agree (but then the sentence sits strangely in Atamas' comment)? Mr Stephen (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by reliable sources should show notability. I'm of the opinion that it probably does (if you look for sources), but I do agree that this wasn't fully represented in the article as written (by design, I didn't want to tip my hand). My whole point was to make the article seem to not fulfill any criteria at WP:CSD and I feel that it didn't. -- Atama頭 21:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Comments attributed to Chatters do nothing to establish his notability. (Those comments typically come from press releases.) What is needed is a full-on comment about Chatters, that shows someone cares enough about him to write about him, not simply parrot his comments on the matter that the article is really about. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The links I'd provided weren't press releases, but they were also only the first 2 sources I found after 10 seconds of searching (there are almost 150 other potential news articles at GNews, and I haven't even looked at GScholar yet). My goal was to make the article not eligible for CSD, that's all. -- Atama頭 23:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chatters article is now a redirect. I'm okay with that, I believe I could show enough notability with effort to get the article up to snuff but I'll leave it be for now. The Muncy article, on the other hand, I plan to develop here shortly (I'll need to clean it up and wikify it first). -- Atama頭 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are completely mistaken about the Chatters article, and I think that you ought to very seriously refresh your own understanding of the CSD criteria, before criticising others for applying them correctly. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... perhaps you should avoid tagging articles for speedy deletion if you have such a misunderstanding". Perhaps you should stop creating articles on unremarkable archaeologists. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do CSD work and even i can read: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Given that the disagreement seems to lie in the credibility of the claim's "significance or importance" i did a quick check of "james chatters" on GScholar and found 162 results. You could have improved the article yourself. CSD was the quick-out. If this had been WP:PRODed or sent to WP:AFD then it is highly likely someone else would have improved the article. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 00:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken the trouble to read any of those articles? How many are about James Chatters, rather simply regurgitating his comments about some bones found locally? Any of them? That Chatters once examined some bones now thought to be noteworthy does not per se make him notable. No matter how many times you or anyone else claim that it does. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously believe that James Chatters warrants an article then I defy you to write it. Let's see what you can come up with; if it's better than Atama's effort perhaps it'll even stick this time. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You defy me to write it? You want to see if i can create something better than Atama's newbie account's intentionally simple article? WOW! You prove your comprehension of the language and you insult mine. I think you mean that you dare me to write it. You missed my point that as part of WP:NPP it is your job to improve articles, in addition to CSD tagging. You are defying me by not improving it.

I don't usually create on-wiki so some day you will see the article no longer being a redirect. Maybe it will be my first FA and you will find it on the main page. I fully intended to expand it. Now i think i will just leave you to wonder when that will happen. I have a lot of reading to do to find WP:PROF notability and to strengthen the WP:ANYBIO criterion #2 that was the foundation of JoeKole/Atama's initial claim. It is this tv junkie's favourite night and she is going to enjoy her "stories" and maybe read tomorrow. I may find that he is entirely non-notable. I never claimed that he is. I stated that JoeKole made the claim that Dr James Chatters is notable. Anthropology and archæology are not my expertise or interest so please have some patience. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 03:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right.--Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Atama. Malleus, I feel you are confusing the criteria for CSD A7 with the criteria for notability. The latter cannot be decided by a single editor: they are determined by an AfD. The criteria for A7 are much more limited. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're both wrong. I quote the A7 criterion: "An article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". James Chatters fitted that description perfectly, no matter how many of you NEWTs bleat to the contrary. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wrong again. This version clearly and unambiguously asserts the importance or significance of its subject. Never heard of "Kennewick Man"? Well, Wikipedia has an article on it, and has since 2002, and it was on the Main Page just a few months ago, and Chatters was mentioned in it - with sources - at the time the stub about him was written. It's clear that being one of the discoverers of this important find confers enough importance on James Chatters that an article on him can't be summarily deleted under A7. +An gr 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama's wrong and you're wrong. Shame that you can't see that, but not really a surprise. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone's wrong except you, huh? Way to find consensus. I'm starting to understand your username better all the time. +An gr 07:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'd have written that if you really understood my user name. In any event, consensus ought not to involve you and Atama trying to bully me into accepting your half-baked ideas about notability and CSD tagging, and when I don't, stooping to personal remarks. This discussion is now over as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]