One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where the article was deleted per A7. Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by editors with less than 100 edits. Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia space edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with fewer than 100 edits would find shed loads. In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept is along the lines of "but he exists!". Which is more a failure to grasp the concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it. More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the Internet - our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings does seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such as new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team. WereSpielChequers On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Here's a couple of "discussions". In the very loosest sense of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogsc… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadow_of_Isra… This says it all, really: - *Delete* - Yet another attempt by fans of an unremarkable podcast to find a way to promote themselves on Wikipedia. See the deletion logs for The YogPod<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_YogPod&action=e… , The Yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Yogscast&acti… , The yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_yogscast&acti…;redlink=1>, and Yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogscast&action=e… . MikeWazowski <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikeWazowski> (talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski>) 14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC) And apparently it's personal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland#The_Yogscast_Wikipedia_page Excellent (imho) article start here, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bastawhiz/The_Yogscast On 9 October 2011 01:18, Michel Vuijlsteke &lt;wikipedia(a)zog.org&gt; wrote:

Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if, after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so. When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ... this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.

Boldness.... In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity, but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of exception, but it really is not that bold action at all). I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of spotlight.. I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or hesitation to start.... While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest... just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high) In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their work. Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]] On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzman &lt;ritzman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Coincidentally, I started here by doing that you argued against, which is being bold. That aside, if we start questioning "be bold", then we also need to reconsider "nobody owns articles". I've always been a firm believer, even in the beginning that Wikipedia (same could be extended to any open wiki) is ultimately a communal effort with individualist aspects; proper balance between the two key aspects need to be maintained in order for the wiki to remain open to those to edit. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 9:23 AM, petr skupa wrote: It frustration is featured POV he agonizing or expectation suggest... hurt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.

I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: new _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

> Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if, > after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so. > > When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing > that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ... > this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.