Some of those CSD criticisms are very harsh. First one; Being founded by a notable person doesn't make a company notable, and it makes no claim of notability. Redirect to the founder, but the CSD isn't technically wrong. Second one; what's a "shard"? I have no idea. Would a casual reader? If they would'nt, this is a correct CSD. Third one should've just been redirected to the author, certainly isn't worth keeping as a stand-alone. Fourth one I agree with you. Fifth one; a local news item doesn't save this from being an A7 - this is debtable, but not wrong. Sixth one doesn't have any context at all - what place? It's meaningless - an absolutely correct A1. Seventh one I agree with you. Black Kite 16:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things. 7 made the move, so the R3 isn't totally unreasonable. Had s/he tagged it as a G6 it would have been deleted without comment. I don't think the Polka Floyd A7 was so wrong. When you say "7 A7'd something w/ a RS", you kind of neglect saying that what was A7'd was an article about a Toledo band and the 'RS' was a bit in a local paper about the band. As for the UO server, you argue that he made a mistake but your very next edit was to redirect the page (Wrong wikipedian)? Must not have been much of a mistake. Also, I would have deleted that, even though I already knew what a shard in UO is. As for the Nutkani, was this really a grievous error? For the famous pseudonym, the page is redirected now. I'm not arguing that these were perfect cases, but 'terrible' errors, they're not. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you and I disagree on deletion, Black Kite, but let me say that your defense is exactly the reason to oppose. Same for Protonk's. Black Kite is repeating for example the very old error that A7 is about notability - which it is not. Being founded by a notable person does not make a company notable - but that's not what is needed. It does however indicate some significance and that's what's needed. The second has been actually declined as being "very clear". Third was still wrong as an A7, no matter whether it would be worth keeping. It just does not fit A7, so it's wrong. Fifth, same as first, indication of importance or significance (A7) is provided by a reliable source covering the subject. It does not make the subject notable, but that's not the question. As for sixth, the context can easily be determined using wikilinks to the terms used. A1 should imho not delete articles which just lack appropriate formatting to provide context which the declining admin proved was easily possible.
I think those examples may not be "terrible" but they are very basic and can easily be avoided. The candidate shows both a willingness to use "notability" within A7 (which it shouldn't per policy) and to delete rather than make easily possible fixes. I am not someone who wants article writing in an admin, I do not expect such things because I do not think it's needed for being an admin. What I do think though is that a potential admin, with the ability to delete content, should show some willingness to fix easy to fix problems instead of calling for deletion. Regards SoWhy 18:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...let me say that your defense is exactly the reason to oppose. Same for Protonk's." what, huh? BK may have conflated A7 w/ notability, but I didn't. My point was (elaborated somewhat on my talk page) that among speedies the candidate has made which have been deleted, his/her work is by and large, sound and among speedies the candidate has made which have not been deleted, their work is not bad. I don't actually think my defense or articulation of those speedies should be enough to sway you, I just wanted to point out what I thought were exaggerations on your part with respect to the quality/efficacy of the speedy tagging before a number of 'oppose per sowhy' votes came along. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I have mixed up your comments with BK's in the editing window and thus must misread them. My apologies, although I will say that I do not agree that those things I pointed out are exaggerations. Those were mistakes that could easily have been avoided and even if the candidate's work is good with those things deleted, every such mistake may WP:BITE some new user, which cannot be our goal. I do not expect perfection in those things but the confusion of notability and A7 seems a bit too strong for my liking. For the record, I am completely willing to be swayed to support but I would need to see some indication that the candidate will not repeat such mistakes (willingly). Regards SoWhy 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy – So why, in your first example, did you not mention the fact that 7 added a hangon tag on behalf of the author? He didn't have to do that? Does that not suggest he is willing to subject to a second pair of eyes before deleting? I know someone here appreciates a second pair of eyes... and so do I. – B.hotep •talk• 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do give 7 credit for being helpful to the creator after tagging; but my point is that at this point, the WP:BITE already happened. Adding the hangon for the creator does not make the tagging correct. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the arguments about the semantics of A7 are very old, but let's face it, A7 actually says "...does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" - which is effectively a roundabout way of indicating notability. Now to me, the fact that a company has been founded by someone who just happens to have a bluelink doesn't indicate why it's important or signficant (or indeed, notable). As I say, debatable, but hardly wrong. (For the record though, if I'd been presented with that CSD request, I'd have redirected it). Black Kite 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 also says that this is "a lower standard than notability", so it cannot be a roundabout way to say "notability", can it? An actor with only one notable film does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER but it makes an indication of importance/significance. That's a difference we need to be aware of when dealing with A7. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think that moving this discussion away from the RFA is negatively affecting the candidate's chances, because you've effectively moved the objections of two people to your voting rationale away from plain sight? I don't think anyone's claiming that 7's CSD tagging is perfect, but equally I don't think it's anywhere near as poor as you're painting it. Having said that, I don't suppose there was much chance for an editor claiming to be on the deletionist side of neutral, even if few of the opposers admitted it :) Black Kite 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't, I just wanted to move the whole discussion away for readability concerns (since I got myself a NC10 a while back, I am a bit more concerned how things look for people with resolutions <1280). That said, you are welcome to restore your first comment (and/or Protonk's of course) but I'd ask you to not restore the whole discussion. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Kite (even though I voted oppose myself): You moved not only the objections of two people, but even the credit you give Mr 7. This discussion is right on topic and the natural place for it is on the RFA. It should be moved back in its entirety. — Sebastian 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general discussion about the scope of 7 and similar are not really within the scope of the RFA and make the RFA quite hard to navigate for people on small resolutions. But I won't object if you moved it back of course, I just tried to improve readability not tried to hide criticism (it's not really "hidden" here, is it?) Regards SoWhy 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) It's effectively hidden. The whole reason I commented on the oppose was to point out that the problems you listed weren't as bad as you said they were, in an attempt to reduce the number of folks who will come to the RfA, see your oppose and oppose "per SoWhy". I don't blame you for wanting to free the page from clutter, but I think this wasn't the right outcome. Protonk (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that 3 people think it was not a good idea, and nobody spoke up in favor, I'm moving it back for now. — Sebastian 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
