Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/SoWhy

SoWhy's experience

First and foremost, I'd like to express that I find this idea a good one and I had fun participating in it. It's refreshing to be a newbie for a few days, simply to see what happens. In my newbie persona (Azerajion - talk page) I created four BLPs. Each of them contained:

1-2 short sentence(s) about the subject
a credible claim of importance/significance and
1-2 reliable source(s)

Article	State it was created in	Fate	Welcome / Message	Patrolled	Notes
Richard Rogler	[1]	Cleaned up by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) and Polargeo (talk · contribs)	No	Yes
Andreas Rebers	[2]	Tagged for A1 by E Wing (talk · contribs). Declined by Skomorokh (talk · contribs) and cleaned up by Skomorokh and R'n'B (talk · contribs)	Yes, Twinkle automated	Yes
Wolfgang Stumph	[3]	Tagged for A7 by The-Giant-Andrew (talk · contribs) and deleted by Tedder (talk · contribs)	No	Yes	Tried to appeal to deleting admin in my newbie persona at the admin's talk page. Unfortunately, he only responded once and forgot to respond when I asked why a reliable source and winning multiple awards is not an indication of importance.
Russ Meneve	[4]	Tagged for A7 by A8UDI (talk · contribs). Declined by Jayron32 (talk · contribs)	Yes, Twinkle automated	Yes

To summarize, I was glad to see that our admins and users are far less deletion inclined than one might sometimes think and that they were willing to give 3 of those articles a chance. The only negative experience was on the Wolfgang Stumph article. Not only that it was deleted (although failing A7) but it was done so without a notification to the creator (most likely because it was tagged by a newbie and now blocked user) and the deleting admin failed to respond to the creator's questions, which probably would have made them felt ignored and thus bitten. All in all, I think it's safe to say that I expected worse things to happen (and just maybe rising standards in admin promotion when it comes to speedy deletion have lead to more carefulness in this area). I'm now off to get those articles to DYK Regards So Why 08:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to have unwittingly participated. I imagine I didn't leave a welcome message because I saw that one already existed by the time I got to the article. No point overloading a new user's talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I think when I had been less experienced I might have tagged for speedy delete, but now I know better. I should have given a welcome message, and perhaps also a message offering advice on improving the article: I will try to bear that in mind in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Interesting to have been a participant in this. It caught me alphabetically, since I tend to delete from the tail of the alphabet

It's a good warning for me to be more careful with CSDs. A couple caveats- generally the CSD tagger, not deleter, leaves the talk page messages (I need to check for this). Second, I did offer to userify the article. (this is mitigation at best). Overall, I need to do some things differently. tedder (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did offer to userfy it although of course a new user probably has no idea what userfying is. The problem here was that you did not respond to further questions by that newbie (i.e. me). Regards So Why 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Gives me things to work on. tedder (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SoWhy, I've started putting all the results for articles that shouldn't have been deleted per CSD into a results table - will do some more tomorrow. PS to Tedder, thanks for being a good sport. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be part of this experiment! Looks like I passed. Just one little note, but I did do some rudimentary cleanup and wikifying when I declined the speedy. Not that you left me much to work with! --Jayron32 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]