User talk:Balloonman/CSD A1 survey

Amalthea's Review

Tell me how I did with A1 CSD's?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your percentages don't add up, 2 of 20 is 10%

2. OK, and can't be more wrong. If it has wikilinks, it hardly ever can be an A1
10. I think you meant A1 instead of G1 in your review here?
11. I don't see any attack. A professor said something in a course, and a student created an article about it. PROD as WP:MADEUP.
12. I could let that one slide as an A1. It's certainly on the long side of "very short", but I don't see how the subject of the article could be identified to even think about looking for sources or more information.
17. I was wrong above: it can be more wrong. If it has references, it hardly ever can be an A1.

I find it interesting that a higher percentage here shouldn't be speedily deleted, compared to G1. Maybe that's where I got the impression of more A1 mistaggings than G1. I'd also be interested if the clarification in Twinkle three weeks ago had a positive effect, but that's probably hard to judge. :)
Amalthea 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

10: It was G1---NOT G10! 12: The only reason why I wouldn't go with A1 is because the page name gives it context. It is near a school/basement/etc. Also, remember if I kept two of the Admin's edits here, the percentage would have blossomed in the keep category. The only reason it isn't higher is because I stopped looking at two Admins after realizing that they had no clue.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re 12: If my French hasn't abandoned be "Salle d'oragé" means "hall of storm", which doesn't help that much. We might actually differ in our interpretation of A1 here though: I am looking for enough context so that I (ETA: or someone, if I feel I just lack the expertise, which should have happened here) can reasonably start looking for sources, which is more than just an idea of what the subject might look like. A room with a made-up name in the basement of a school is, to me, as good as the funny man with the red car: I can picture them in my head, but can't put a finger on where or who the topic is, to identify them.
Oh, and I never even saw those articles of course, I was unhappy already with the ones that were tagged. --Amalthea 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re 12: I'll bet my autographed first edition of the Dungeon Masters Guide that this is something about a room in somebody's role-playing game! But without context it's a valid A1. --165.189.32.7 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG's Review

I judge differently in enough cases that I'm giving them all

1 Disagree. google shows smashinpanda as a nick for a human. This is A7, not A1

2 Agree. This is a mixtape and does not fit in speedy , even in A9, and must go to prod. Agree. We could however argue for putting mixtapes in A9 as almost none are notable.

3 Disagree-- expand. "Isle of the Snake People" from Google is a well known movie with a NYT review. Easy to make a stub.

4 Agree, either context or nonsense.

5 Disagree, it is either either nonsense, G1. or A1, no context, , It does not go to prod. I checked Google and found no reasonable meaning for the word--if it had been, for example, a character in some fiction, then prod would have been right. Or did I miss it? If I saw it on prod, I would speedy it.

6 Debatable. I consider it as essentially nonsense-- playing with words in a meaningless fashion. If I saw it on prod I would leave it there, though.

7 Agree. Valid article if actually notable. Possible G7 as web content, but not nonsense.

8 Partially agree. Possibly valid article, depending on references. If a national office, i defend them at AfD. I do not prod these if major party candidates, even for state offices. Some admins interpret A7 as meaning no indication that is at all likely to stand up. I disagree, but they do have a point.

9 Agree. valid A1

10 Agree, but it could better be called A1, no context, than A7. If there is no way of knowing who the person is, there is no context. If it gave the school too, it would be A7.

11 Disagree, speedy, not prod. . it's schoolboy vandalism, G3. G10 is also justified, but I don't use it for stupid jokes, only things intended to be nasty. If I aw it on Prod, I would speedy it.

12 Disagree, I consider this to be meaningless. Calling it nonsense or no context makes very little different. Calling it G10 is wrong, it isn't really that abusive. Sending it to prod is unnecessary. I would deprod. If it is a possible G10, the alternative to speedy should be afd, not prod.

13 Disagree; this is like no. 10; when there is no way of knowing who is being referred to , it's nonsense, especially when it is not likely to be a personal name.

14 Disagree; I would ask for references, not prod. checking the "Washburn Guitars" article, Dimebag Darrell is in fact the name of a performer, & Stealth is a type of guitar made for him. This is a valid name of a particular guitar and is simply an incomplete article. it might just possibly be notable--probably not, but it needs further checking.

15 Agree, but maybe we do need a speedy for original fiction; the problem is to tell when it's an excerpt from actually published fiction. currently, this one is a prod. But I have seen similar articles as incomplete attempts to recount the plot of actually notable fiction & I've expanded and kept. .

16 Agree, but this is one of the cases where it could also be considered A7.

17 Agree. thIs almost certain a salvagable article. Not a prod. Tag for references.

18 Agree, couldn't find on Google, but if I had found it on Google, then if "moodisa" is the name of a website it's A7; if it's a program, it's for Prod. ,

19 Agree, Probably valid article, many good ghits in published sources, but might be objected to as a dicdef.

20 Agree, since I couldnt find on Google. If I could have, it would be a prod as a computer program.

What I do differently from Balloonman:

I am more willing to use G2, test page

I keep G3 vandalism, and G10 test page, for articles serious enough to deserve them

I do not prod when a tag for references is more suitable, because it may equally well get deleted at the end of the Prod when it is in fact rescuable

If I can not figure out who a person is, I consider it a valid A1, no context if it is very short

In doubt, I google, & decide what to do on that basis

My interpretation:

1. many things can validly fall in more than one category
2. many things that are clearly speedy deletable can be reasonably interpreted differently by different good people-- I disagree with 7 out of 20 decisions.
3. there are a number of clear errors by admins, that make no significant difference. 2, 6, 15 will surely be deleted.
4. a few admins do truly wrong single-handed speedy deletion. 7, 17, 19 are clear and unmistakable errors that make a difference, since they may well be kept. 19 is by an admin who IMHO sometimes does just this. 17 & 9 by different fairly reliable admin, who rarely do.. DGG (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Seraphimblade's view

You requested my take, so I'll go through and post my own thoughts on each one.

1

Agreed, perfectly OK.

2

Agreed on invalid A1, depending on who it's by might be a valid A9.

3

Exactly what A1 was designed for, agreed.

4

Agreed, again pretty clear cut and entirely OK.

5

Obviously unacceptable and useless article. Maybe doesn't technically fit any speedy categories, if not it's a totally valid use of IAR.

6

There's enough context in the article to identify that it's some type of rating system, but not what it is, what it's from, etc. It's obviously something someone made up, probably drunk. Again, if it's not technically a speedy I've got no trouble with IAR here.

7

Poor speedy, should have been AfD'd or prodded. Context is clear, notability is asserted (if not proven).

8

Poor speedy, there is sufficient context and an (unsupported) assertion of notability. Should have been AfD'd or prodded.

9

Exactly what A1 is made for.

10

Valid A1, there's no identifying context there.

11

There's no context there. What is it? What does it concern? Slapping a label on something and giving some inventor name is not meaningful context. I have no idea what this "law" supposedly is from reading that. Valid A1.

12

Providing context is deliberately avoided ("very mysterious", no location provided, etc.) Valid A1.

13

A1 or A7 are valid, there's no context here identifying who this person actually is. Moot point though, since A7 would work. I'd probably use A7 there.

14

Probably should've been prodded. Not a terrible speedy though, I don't see any notability assertion, but there's enough context to identify what this thing is and where it came from. I would've prodded rather than speedying, but I wouldn't really take someone to task for doing otherwise. All articles with no notability assertion should be A7able, so I don't tend to take a very dim view of those who IAR toward that.

15

Not technically a speedy, but exactly what IAR was written for. There's nothing salvageable in that, and it's got no hope of being kept. I won't say a decision was wrong when the right thing happened in technically the wrong way.

16

Valid.

17

Very, very poor speedy. Shouldn't likely have even been put up for deletion, though a merge somewhere might be appropriate.

18

Valid.

19

Doesn't seem salvageable, but some surprise you. Shouldn't have been speedied under A1, but again no assertion of importance and I don't come down too hard on those who do that.

20

Valid. Don't know why a nom would matter, that's never been required.

Conclusion

So, at my count, I find 3 speedies that were definitely bad, 2 that were borderline, and 3 that weren't technically speedy candidates but were a fine use of IAR. The remaining were valid speedies either under A1 or another category.