On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > > (4) How many requests do we actually get from article subjects to delete the > article about them? I would think most would be happier with an article that > speaks well of them and/or is simply factually correct. If we were to adopt > this particular approach (and if it were not redundant, perhaps because the > existing approach failed to take root permanently) would it have much > practical impact?
As a former OTRS person, I can say that this number is surprisingly high. I handled a *number* of cases in which people wanted their articles deleted. Some were completely non-notable, some were marginally notable, and some still are completely notable (but they'd still rather be gone, once we've explained that we can't white-wash for them). > [snip] > > Maybe by giving subjects a more obvious and easy way to complain we can get > past this hurdle, making OTRS respondents responsible for starting AfDs. But > we still have a whole constantly expanding host of articles and potential > articles on living people who are too notable to delete; a deletion default > doesn't help with those. > > Nathan While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the community judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to follow: encourage OTRS respondents to send the marginally notable through the normal AfD process (like any other) and allow those in the community more equipped to deal with deletion/BLP issues handle it. -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l