User talk:Balloonman/CSD G10 survey

Amalthea's Review

I just saw at WT:CSD that you did one on G10 as well. The cases there seem quite clear, so just a minor point with the fourth example: if the creator blanked then G7 fits better than A3. If an article has a non-no-content revision in its history it shouldn't typically be deleted A3. Of course, if the one revision that had content was clearly deleteable as a G10 then I'm also OK with calling an attack page an attack page.
BTW, I've left you a note at my talk page. Cheers, Amalthea 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G10 was pleasantly uneventful. The only egregious cases I found were ones that were pointed out to me. I left the one that was blanked, because (if I remember correctly) it was blanked by the person placing the tag there. Eg they found an attack page and rather than leave the attack page, they blanked it and asked for speedy.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade Review

I agree entirely with your assessments of all ten random examples, so will go forward to the two "mistakes". I don't think they're necessarily errors, BLP violations can be deleted on sight. The option of fixing exists, but if you can't do it right now or don't believe it possible, summary deletion is possible. We are far better to have no article than a hatchet job, a decent one can always be written later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a philosophical difference, that I disagree with. I think a stub is more likely to be expanded.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]