Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. However, I'm going to move the page to Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA0 because that seems to be a solution that satisfies all of the conflicting priorities: keeping the page around for historical/teaching/learning purposes, while resetting the GA nomination without putting the article at the back of the queue. —ScottyWong— 06:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Buidhe with the reason "This is not a proper GA review based on the criteria." FASTILY 03:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Trout Buidhe for the bad CSD tagging, G6-ing pages with a contribution history from others is definitely not OK. I don't see any rationale to delete here at MfD either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- When GA reviewers post a "review" that obviously falls far short of what is expected, the usual way it's dealt with is substituting onto the talk page and speedy deleting the review. Since posts are signed there is no concern with attribution. If you doubt look at the page history of WT:GAN. That's how it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buidhe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)]
- The usual way? That amounts to quite an abuse of WP:G6. Subst and delete? That sounds like a dirty approximation of a history merge, or a merge and redirect with an attribution damaging deletion. Can you point more explicitly to evidence of this practice? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)]
- The usual way? That amounts to quite an abuse of
- Keep or Merge onto main talk page. Destroying a record so that it can only be seen by administrators is a bad idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete G6, routine housekeeping needed to make GA work, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)]
- Comment This is a borderline case to me. Usually we only straight out delete reviews that are obvious test\bad faith edits or after a consensus has been reached at WT:GAN that deleting is the best course of action. The last time we did this I believe an admin deleted the reviews and copied the comments to the articles talk page. Those reviews had less actual content than this though (most was template) and was from an editor that was clearly not conducting reviews properly (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Recent flurry of GA Reviews and Noms that seem somewhat hurried....) Even then we gave the reviewer plenty of time to respond, but here I am not seeing any attempt to communicate with @Filmman3000: (am I missing something I don't even see a notice about this discussion). I don't think this is a high quality review, but sometimes with short well developed articles there is not a lot to say. I am not comfortable with this and think a better course of action here would be to reassess it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)]
- I had no clue the subject was controversial. Sorry if my review caused a commotion. All the info came from good sources and the article didn't seem boastful. Since it's short it was a quick read. I may have missed one of the finer details, but all the citations were there. Going to double-check.Filmman3000 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just re-read the articles and the comments. Like @Aircorn: said it's not a high-quality review. However, the article is well-sourced and sums up the subject clearly. I honestly didn't know what to say to the users to improve it. She's new so her article is short but to the point. FYI that same day, I failed an article and went to higher lengths to explain it.Filmman3000 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Filmman, I looked back through your reviews and you did one previously that had to be taken over by another editor. We need more reviewers, but we also need reviewers who understand or are willing to learn the process. Nominators can wait a long time for a review so it is only fair to give them a decent one. In the future I would suggest that you go through each of the criteria and say how it meets them if you find nothing wrong with the article (i.e which sources you checked, link to a copyright tool, google search results for broadness etc). That way it is obvious to others that you have checked off these criteria. Once you get a bit more experience then that might not be so necessary, still a good habit though. Also don't be afraid to bring up issues you notice outside the criteria, just make sure you don't fail the article if the nominator disagrees. Not many GA nominations have no scope for comments. At the end of the day the object is to improve the article and a rubber stamp approval doesn't always accomplish this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just re-read the articles and the comments. Like @Aircorn: said it's not a high-quality review. However, the article is well-sourced and sums up the subject clearly. I honestly didn't know what to say to the users to improve it. She's new so her article is short but to the point. FYI that same day, I failed an article and went to higher lengths to explain it.Filmman3000 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The GAN project really needs to figure out a process on dealing with inappropriate reviews. Deleting the review page itself doesn't seem like a good option. – SD0001 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are processes and deleting is one option. It resets the nomination. Delisting is another one, but more bureaucratic. It really depends on the quality of the review and whether there are mitigating factors (we have issues with sockuppets occasionally). AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Deleting substandard reviews means discarding the opportunity to learn from the problem and address underlying issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I understand it, there are some unavoidable inflexibilities in the GA process because of an inability to change the bot that maintains the nomination page. One of them is that a bad review, if left in place, makes the bot think that the nomination has been handled, requiring a new nomination and losing priority in the months-long queue for GA reviews. To avoid this problem, if bad reviews like this are to be kept, they should be kept in a way that avoids confusing the bot, by moving them to a new name without leaving a redirect. And in any case, because we wish to avoid counting it as a review, it should not be linked from the nomination. But then, if we are moving it to some unused name without leaving a redirect and without leaving a link, what is the point of keeping it at all? Who would ever find it in its new location? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Options could include: Fix the bot; Document a new CSD criterion; WP:Move without redirect the page; better educate new GA reviewers. To not lose the moved poor review, categorize it. A category of all deemed-poor reviews could be very valuable in improving the new GA reviewer induction program. Abuse of G6 is a poor option. WP:NOTBUREACRACY is policy, but so is WP:CSD, and NOTBUREAUCRACY doesn't explicity speak to deleting others poor contributions, while CSD does state, as the opening line, "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ]
- We delete stuff all the time. There is no requirement that all contributions of all contributors, no matter how useless, be kept somewhere. I think this specific case is addressed by DELPOL #14, "content not suitable for an encyclopedia", and arguably also #12, files that are unused or obsolete. DELPOL also explicitly says that the reasons it lists are not the only valid reasons for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I understand it, there are some unavoidable inflexibilities in the GA process because of an inability to change the bot that maintains the nomination page. One of them is that a bad review, if left in place, makes the bot think that the nomination has been handled, requiring a new nomination and losing priority in the months-long queue for GA reviews. To avoid this problem, if bad reviews like this are to be kept, they should be kept in a way that avoids confusing the bot, by moving them to a new name without leaving a redirect. And in any case, because we wish to avoid counting it as a review, it should not be linked from the nomination. But then, if we are moving it to some unused name without leaving a redirect and without leaving a link, what is the point of keeping it at all? Who would ever find it in its new location? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Deleting substandard reviews means discarding the opportunity to learn from the problem and address underlying issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are processes and deleting is one option. It resets the nomination. Delisting is another one, but more bureaucratic. It really depends on the quality of the review and whether there are mitigating factors (we have issues with sockuppets occasionally). AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Because something has been declined as a speedy is not necessarily a reason to list it here. If it speediable, then speedy it. If it should be handled otherwise as suggested above, do that (which seems to be the best course of action). Happy to reconsider if a better deletion rationale is presented. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.