Quoting from WP:SPEEDY "Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it. The word "speedy" in this context refers to the quickness of the decision making process and not the length of time elapsed since article creation." Further quoting from WP:RCP, "Don't bite the newbies. If you see a new user or IP address contributing, welcome them if you're so inclined, and include a pointer or two of feedback about how they can make their contributions even better. Most will gladly welcome the support." Also noting WP:DPWhat to do with a problem page/image/category which contains a large table of ways editors can help out other than by deleting articles. Thatcher131 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to strike 12.2 due to the word "obligation". What exactly is wrong with 12.3? Except in cases of vandalism, recreation of deleted content or copyvios, what is the harm in contacting the editor first? If an article does not assert notability or contain verifiable sources, will wikpedia fall to the Vandals if there is a 24 hour delay while we gently explain our policies to the newbie? Ww e should assume good faith that the editor means well and can supply notability and verifiability if asked, or will self-nom for speedy once he understands the rules. (I was also careful to specify logged in editors as opposed to IPs, since logging in implies a desire to stick around, at least per AGF.) I don't know how often it happens but it happened again yesterday, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulfside United Methodist Assembly, where the AfD nominator didn't bother to explain on the talk page or contact the user before posting the nomination. I realize it would slow down the RCP a bit to actually ask that they contact new editors about their articles before trashing them, but is it really better for the encyclopedia to behave this way? Thatcher131 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy criteria—particularly the general ones, rather than the ones specifically for articles—are meant to eliminate pure garbage with minimal fuss. For most of them, at least, contacting the editor will do nothing, since neither the notability nor the verifiability of the material is in question. What benefit, exactly, is there to contacting the author of "Can I create an article here?" before deleting the thing? (I'm not suggesting that a welcoming message would be unwarranted here; but there's no reason to keep their test page around in the meantime.)
Beyond this, the practical effect will be that Special:Newpages patrol will grind to a halt. Nobody is going to bother keeping a list of articles that should be speedied and contacting the authors. Kirill Lokshin 14:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to re-read 12.3 by itself (emphasis added).
Except in cases of blatant vandalism, logged-in editors writing their first article should be treated with courtesy, welcomed to wikipedia, and offered guidance and assistance to help make their first article meet wikipedia's guidelines. Nominating an editor's first article for deletion without contacting the editor and offering assistance, or an explanation, is uncivil and a violation of don't bite the newbies, in that it gives the impression that editing wikipedia is reserved for "insiders" and discourages further contributions.
That statement alone does not call for mandatory assistance or any kind of waiting period, just contact and courtesy. I could insert "or at least a civil explanation" to make it clearer. I would also be amenable to making the principle explicity exclude articles by anons, by editors with a long enough history to know the rules, and articles that are attack pages, copy vios or obvious nonsense. But I think pouncing on new articles that seem on their first edit to lack WP:N or WP:V is a problem. Even a kid writing a vanity article about his own garage band could become a useful contributor, and I don't see how keeping an article about a non-notable band, author, person or place for 24 hours while we talk to the author is going to harm the encyclopedia. As a practical matter, NP patrolers who find a questionable new article by a new editor could tag it {{newbie}} or something, and contact the author. The {{newbie}} tag would tell other NP patrolers to leave it alone. If after a courteous introduction and attempt at discussion, the article still doesn't pass muster, the NP patroler can remove his own newbie tag and tag it for deletion. Of course, this assume that at least some NP patrolers will be willing to work with new editors. If the new pages patrol is so tightly focused on keeping out articles that don't meet WP:N and WP:V on their first edit that they can't be courteous to new editors, perhaps the NPP is doing more harm than good. Thatcher131 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course RfAR is not the place for this sort of debate. I thought helping newbies write articles was an accepted goal here. If you want to strike out or delete my "proposed principles" I will not object. Thatcher131 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
