Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Comments about deletion practices

This is to address issues raised by SoWhy permalink

A7 for article with plenty of RS, G1 within minutes on an article that only met A3, A7 on a redirect, two G2 taggings for A3-worthy articles ([1] [2], unfortunately deleted as such by an admin with roughly the same approach to speedy deletion), A7 with plenty of claims of significance, G8 on a redirect whose target existed (the G6ed and then taken to RfD where she withdrew the nom), A7 without checking the page history or the talk page, A7 for a school, another G8 for a redirect whose target existed (and another and another and another) and A9 for a recording of a notable band. Even some of the (incorrectly deleted) articles show such errors, such as this A7 with an offline source cited, this tagging of a non-English article that does not meet A2 and this A7 for the wife of a notable politician (with some claims of significance herself) (an accepted AfC submission!).

Regarding A7 for article with plenty of RS. The Abigail Keam article was previously deleted and is currently at AfD for the 2nd time, where the only vote so far is to delete. I should not have created a CSD, but sent it back to AfD to begin with.
Regarding G1 within minutes on an article that only met A3 - I could have waited longer, that is true, but there were several articles created in a row with just the name of the person. How long would you wait before tagging an article with just the name of the person?
Regarding A7 on a redirect - that was a mistake.
Regarding two G2 taggings for A3-worthy articles ([3] [4], unfortunately deleted as such by an admin with roughly the same approach to speedy deletion - I am unable to see these.
Regarding A7 with plenty of claims of significance - I haven't seen that this person warrants there own page, but based upon my current understanding of A7, I would not now tag as CSD.
Regarding A9 for a recording of a notable band, the article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Heart Engraved These Messages and the decision was to redirect to the article about the band. I learned through the exchanges about this that I should have not tagged it as a CSD and sent to AfD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point, isn't it? You are telling us that you want to work in this area but are making mistakes that could easily be avoided. You say you shouldn't have done those taggings but why did you? Those are recent examples after all. As for the G1 tagging, do you realize that G1 was the wrong criterion to use (and if so, why)? It seems as if you are solely focusing on the "wait a bit" part. PS: I restructured your quote of my comment above to avoid it looking as if I had posted it here. Hope you don't mind. Regards So Why 11:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the whole notion of pursuing the RfA grew out of discussions about two of the articles you've mentioned here. I had not been looking to become an admin. I agree that I tagged some articles with CSD when I should have used AfD or Prod and would not do that again.

I think that my instincts are good regarding whether articles are viable or not, though. For instance, 83% of the time my AfD votes matched the final decision and in several other cases I improved the articles and there was no consensus.

I don't know what you mean by "you are solely focusing on the 'wait a bit' part". I don't see that I'm "solely focusing" on anything.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This A7 with an offline source cited" is John Hair and Son, which is clearly not a speedy as I found a reliable source mentioning the subject in about ten seconds on Google News. However, the article was deleted twice (!) so I have to cut Carole some slack in that I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if an admin deletes something, they're probably right (even in this case where they're both wrong). I would much rather have an explanation from RHaworth and Oshwah as to why they deleted this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested approach

I am thinking that perhaps the best approach right now is: 1) Re-read the guidelines for CSD, 2) read User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion, 3) review current CSDs and remove those that should be removed and 4) go through the NewPagesFeed to get more experience under my belt.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]