Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Administrative Abuses and Oppression of Content

This is suppose to be a community based effort yet the Administrators of the site seem to have taken as extremely opressive and community un-friendly approach to management of the site. This oppressive state of affairs turns off potential contributors, such as myself, to attempting to participate in this community effort. It seems as if the deletion policy has grown out of necesity to protect the validity and relavance of the information provided through the use of wikipedia, but that due to the very nature of of ideolgy they are trying to protect, they have instead reach a critical point where they have begun to hasten the destruction of the sites usefulness as a community effort. If new articles posted by new users cannot be allowed to be goverened by the same users that participate in its creation, then what's the point? Subjectivity is running rampid in wikipedia and it's only going to get worse as the divion between community members grows. Wikipedia has ceised to be a community based project when the majority of conent can be selectively delete at will by it's administrators rather then through debate and discussion by the community at large. Perhaps this is a technical limitation of the software or perhaps it's just human nature to want to dominate others in whatever fashion is presented to you, if given the option to do so. In teh end, Wikipedia is failing to provide it's users with it's intended benefits. Zenasprime (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy request

Several articles are repeatedly nominated for deletion. Some editors feel that, if they don't get the answer they want the first time, just keep nominating until they do. I would like to see a minimum time limit between repeat nominations. Something like 3 months if the vote is no consensus and 6 or 12 months if the vote is keep. Any supporters? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problems with doing so are:
  • Articles kept with a Cleanup rationale that are never touched following AfD.
  • Articles deleted and recreated with no different material, yet rewritten with further unreferenced information (i.e. still fails WP:V or WP:RS,) yet can't be speedied as G4).
  • The article is edited, but the edits lead to outright violations of policy (and the violating material becomes essentially inextricable.) - Yes, you can revert to the last "clean" version. Doing so leads to an edit war. If the article was dubious enough to be AfD with support, an editor in good faith may feel the article has become even more deletable.
  • Changes in policy (Example:WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards), which might change the rationale for deletion of previous articles.
There are probably other reasons - this was an off-the-top-of-my-head list. I also think that "asking the other parent" exists (and is already covered in Consensus in the link preceding this.) Proving it, though, may well be impossible.
Granted, but we do currently have the problem of politically motivated AfDs continuously being called. Its time wasting ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the good reasons have been listed and one of the less good one mentioned as an aside. All that's necessary is to examine 2nd and further AfDs, and see to what extent any of the good reasons apply. Almost never is there new negative information. Notice also how many times the 2nd article is the weaker: "Delete and then destroy." Judge for yourself. When I came here I first thought that once people understood what was happening, they would change the policy. No, they'd rather fight than edit. 50% of the effort at AfD goes to delete articles, 40% to keep them, and 10% to improve them. DGG 02:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Problem articles" tables

I notice that the "problem articles" tables were recently readded on the basis that they are "really helpful". That may be the case, but they are also repetitive and bulky/unwieldy. I propose that we (1) move the tables to a subpage of Wikipedia:Deletion policy or create an essay titled Wikipedia:Handling problem articles or the like, (2) restore the prose that was removed, and (3) link to the subpage or essay in the (restored) "Alternatives to deletion" section. Would that be an acceptable compromise for all interested parties? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup resources page lists tags which can be applied if cleanup is needed. They don't specifically say, "if this is a problem with an article, don't list it for deletion, do this instead, so to speak, as the deletion alternatives table used to do. I think it helps users to actually have it in writing, "for problem XYZ, don't delete, do this instead". Is there somewhere useful for the actual tables? FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the aforementioned Wikipedia:Handling problem articles, which you could link from e.g. the header of WP:AFD. I think the point is that the "deletion policy" should be concise and deal with deleting pages; not add a verbose list of other options. >Radiant< 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Radiant. The deletion policy page should be reserved for general policy rather than detailed advice on what to do in dozens of specific circumstances. The tables are useful tool but are not suited for a policy page (though there'd be nothing wrong in linking to it from this and the AfD page). Black Falcon (Talk) 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection as a deletion

Is there any WP policy that deals with people deleting articles and making them redirect to another page? I've seen articles that have been nominated for deletion, survived the vote and then one individual user made the page redirect to another one. Is there no Wikipedia policy against this? Mglovesfun 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actual deletion involves removing a page's history from view. Redirection, on the other hand, constitutes a change of the content of a page that can be reversed by any user. Sometimes a page is redirected after it's history is deleted, but that only occurs when the AfD consensus is to "delete" or "delete, then redirect". The appropriateness of redirecting a page that recently survived an AfD discussion depends on the particular circumstances, but it is not specifically prohibited. If you disagree with the redirection, you may simply undo it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In practice, this sort of redirection is very often used to remove an article, because it escapes public notice. It can and generally should be challenged by reverting, and then discussing it on the talk page, as part of WP:BOLD. I think WP BOLD a remarkably unfortunate policy calculated to lead to edit wars, but editing in this manner is considered acceptable here, and there are no signs of this combative attitude changing. If the original redirect was a POV, and the POV is unacceptable to the editors on the page, it will of course not succeed--this however tends to reflect more the strengths of the positions than the merits. Editing disputes are dealt with through Dispute Resolution, a process that works for good faith differences of opinion, but in practice is helpless is there are basic disagreements. A third opinion and then a RfC are the first steps--they do sometimes work. The third step, Mediation, requires the agreement of both sides to the mediation. (You will allow for my cynical bias here--most of the more experienced people here are quite satisfied with the overall process)DGG 01:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It's nearly always acceptable to revert and discuss a redirect, unless there is an overriding policy reason. Biographies of living persons and Copyright are the most obvious ones, and this will usually be indicated in the edit summary. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review over unsourced stubs

I've added the following statement to the section on deletion review:

It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available.

We've had a few cases recently of people challenging speedies of stuff that obviously wouldn't pass AfD, and this is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia, in particular Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rather than waste time on reviewing the deletion, as good Wikipedians we should just get cracking and write a proper sourced stub on the subject.

Of course we don't want editors going around deleting perfectly good articles, and of course it's appropriate to challenge the deletion of such articles, but it really isn't right to challenge the deletion of a really poor, brief, unsourced stub, when it's much easier and wastes less time to produce a good, well sourced stub in its place. --Tony Sidaway 01:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

the WP:STUB guideline does not specify that a stub to be sourced, just that it contain enough information to be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tony here: in cases where the article had so little content that it could be easily recreated as a better article, there's little reason to wait for a DRV rather than just edit it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGF enforcement

I am serious about the fact that many nominators and participants in AfDs assume they are exempt from WP:AGF merely because the are nominating or supporting an article they believ should be deleted. This is especially true of certain types of articles, such as pop-culture or trivia articles. I have created several such articles with good sources attesting to the notability of each item therein, but you would not know it from the comments in these AFDs. In addition, of the 5 or so articles I have participated in creating or editing that were AfDed, no nominator EVER approached me or the other editors involved to dicsuss the matter first. In several cases, I may have voluntarily removed the info had someone expressed their concerns first. Even though contacting editors first is recommended in the Deletion process as an step before filing an AfD. THese nominators assume that because they disagree with the "type" of article, they don't have to show common courtesies. THis week, an ediotor nominated an aircraft incident article that existed for only one minute, and still will not conceed that this was too soon. It seems obvious to me that such behavoir will continue until these policies are changed to make it clear that ALL editors on Wikipedia should exercise common courtesies, and asumme good faith, when deling with articles that are not obvious hoaxes or vandalsim of some form. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What? This only makes sense if those acting in good faith are incapable of making an article which should be deleted, which is by far not the case. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why we're urged to "assume" good faith. When it's possible the article has not been created in good faith, you should still "asssume" it was until proven otherwise. Again, you're not exempt from AGF just because you nominate AFDs. - BillCJ 07:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project notification of AfD

Recently, members of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force have been accused of canvassing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7#Republic_Airlines_flight_4912_&_SkyWest_Airlines_flight_5741 by a number of editors, with the canvassing as one reason that a nomination should be relisted. However, the only "canvassing" that occurred was a notification placed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page. The task force is a group of editors dedicating to standardizing and managing coverage of avitaion-related incidents, including the current formulation of notability guidelines. These activities necessite an awareness of articles being nominated for AfD. In the past month, 3 other article nominated for AfD have been posted on the talk page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 897, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight 952, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1455. Two of these were deleted, as they were not notable, and on of those was a hoax. If canvassing has occured in this case, then the same canvassing occured with these three AfDs, and they should also be listed for review. However, I strongly contest the canvassing accusation, as, per WP:CANVASS, It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. While some may classify the group as "partisan", it does strive to be objective, as the other examples given illustrate. I see no reason why projects should not be informed of AfDs of articles within their subject. In fact, I would like to see notification of the concered projects formally allowed, if not made mandatory, and am proposing some form of that now. - BillCJ 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an unfortunate assumption that members of a project will defend any articles in scope, but this is simply not so. It at least the projects I follow, the people there are the most concerned of all to see that the articles are good. I've even once or twice joined projects that I thought were supporting poor articles, and found a great willingness of some of the people there to have additional help in deleting them. I think it should not only be permissible, it should be required. I think that the nom of an afd should be absolutely required to take the responsibility of notifying the previous editors, and the relevant projects. They should be notified at the start before the pile on voting begins. for articles that should be deleted, getting someone knowledgeable to say so early on greatly helps things, instead of relying on whoever is sitting around. I certainly try to say delete as soon as I can for the really bad articles of purported academics. DGG (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's really the notification that's the problem, more that there wasn't an opportunity for anyone else to comment. -Amarkov moo! 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
"Canvassing" was probably an unfortunate choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to make reference to WP:CANVASS, the point I was trying to make on DRV was that the discussion was speedily closed before anyone other than those who saw the link on the Aviation accident task force page really got a chance to even look at it. Not that there was something wrong about that link or about the task force contributors proffering their thoughts. --Stormie 07:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Still, the nominator did outright accuse of of canvassing. I agree it's unfortunate the AFD was closed incorrectly. As far as I know, the editor who speedy closed it has nothing to do with the project, as I don't recall ever seeing the editor on a WP:AVIATION article or discussion page. I think he was just someone trying to do the right thing, without relaizing he did it the wrong way, as was the original nominator. - BillCJ 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I think we need a rethink of the AfD process. This is supposed to be a collaborative project, and I don't see how nominating a newly created article one minute after creation fosters collaboration. At minimum, the nominator of an AfD has to make a good faith effort to see if an article can be improved, rather than deleted, and that can't be done in one minute. I'm really tired of people throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks at AfD. I believe the project notification idea is a good one, because it fosters collaboration. I would also like to make two additional suggestions:
  1. Require that some other tag be applied to the article first, such as one of the notability tags, to alert editors of the potential nominator's concerns. This way, the editor can try to resolve the nominator's concerns without having to start an AfD. If they are not resolved in a reasonable time period, this will provide a much better starting point for an AfD, rather than the usual moving target.
  2. Require a seconding of the nomination on AfD. Many AfD's end without any delete votes because they were completely ill advised. By requiring another editor to second the nomination before the AfD process actually starts, we can save a lot of wasted effort.
Dhaluza 11:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Silence = Consensus? Dhaluza 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like both of your ideas, but the seconding idea may need some sort of limit, such as requiring an admin to second it, as alot of regular nominators are familiar with each other from other nominations. I guess we just need to formulate a proposal here, and if there's no objection, go ahead and add it to the Policy. THEN we'll get the discussions going, with plenty of objections! :) - BillCJ 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised Dhaluza's three proposals haven't already been strongly objected to. Well, that's why I'm here ... just kidding. I actually support the idea of project notification. In fact, I think a bot could do this fairly easily: whenever an articles is nominated for deletion, a bot could notify any project whose tag appears on the talk page. I also agree with disallowing AfDs of newly-created articles (CSD and prod are fine, though). I think 24 to 72 hours after tagging is a reasonable range and could reduce the workload at AfD. I don't, however, agree with the third idea (seconding of nominations), given that there are relatively few unanimous "keep" AfDs. Besides, if a nomination receives only "keep" responses, the nominator should be able to figure out that they made a mistake and withdraw after a while. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point about the seconding being unnecessary, but we've both seen enough editors who just keep nominating articles the same way as before as if they are incapable of making mistakes! :) That, for me anyway, is part of the desire for some control over the nomination process. THere might be another way to accomplish this, and I'm certainly open to other suggestions. - BillCJ 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think seconding will reduce the number of repeat nominations (even if admin involvement is required, which I don't support for a variety of reasons). To be honest, I'm not sure what can be done. The most obvious solution (a minimum waiting period between nominations) has been repeatedly suggested and rejected. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BlackFalcon--the non-realistic nominations for deletion come from only a very few people, often those new to AfD. What is needed is to educate them, and the reaction at AfD do that effectively. People off on a POINT of their own don't take kindly to individuals telling them they're wrong--the consensus at afd is what does it. DGG (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD stuff

Does anyone here watch Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion? I've got a couple of points over there that I was hoping to get some feedback on. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Abuse

It is time for this policy to lay out what can not be used as a rationale for deletion, otherwise we have nonstop AFD nominations made on absolutely bogus grounds. Since when have essays been sources of a rationale for deletion? That said, WP:Listcruft is used over and over again by abusers of the system. Why are votes that clearly are not grounded in any kind of policy or consensus counted on here? WP:POINT is meaningless anymore, as most of the regulars on AFD are guilty of it. I propose we make a section that states essays are not permissable rationale for deletion. I mean, if it is an essay it has no consensus. Given this reasoning, I could write an essay in a few minutes and just start nominating articles for deletion citing it. (Mind meal 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Proposed addition

Sentence:(specific sections must always be mentioned when referring to WP:NOT as a rationale) to "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" in the section WP:Deletion#Reasons_for_deletion.

RATIONALE:*Delete per WP:NOT, or Delete because the "article is not encyclopediac". If you spend any time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, you would know that this rationale is constantly given by deletionists. The voter has basically provided no rationale, because they have yet to point out what policy is violated. WP:NOT exists only because of its sections. Outside of that, it is just a title. Obvious inclusion, and is far from this "instruction creep" stuff. One sentence is hardly unmanageable. (Mind meal 12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Since you insisted on adding it for a third time, I must be the person to start the discussion apparently. I strongly object to the wording of that addition, because it is nothing more than instruction creep. Can you please remove it and try and get some consensus on this page before re-adding. This is a policy page and if someone objects to your change you should NOT just re add it. re-adding it twice is ridiculous. Read the tag at the top of the page. ViridaeTalk 11:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep = telling them they MUST do something. They don't have to do anything. And yes, being an admin I have spent some time at afd on occasion, closed a few discussion in my time. I ask you again, can you please remove it and discuss the change as it does not yet enjoy consensus. ViridaeTalk 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are policies then instruction creep, since users must follow them? What is wrong with requiring voters to be specific about policy when voting? This place is incredulous in its reasoning. Of course, this is a place dedicated to deleting things, so fans of that sort will show up. (Mind meal 12:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
No. Policies are instructions, and as such they should be simple and easy to follow. Adding a million little "You musts" and :you must nots" IS instruction creep, and this is one such "you must". If someone wants to cite just WP:NOT without citing the specific rationale, then let them They are half as likely to be ignored if it is nto immeediately obvious. Once again, can you please remove the section you added as it does not enjoy consensus. ViridaeTalk 12:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you did. Might I point out that adding to instructions is bureaucracy, and keeping them simple isn't... ViridaeTalk 12:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I did this because voters have obviously been visiting this policy page, finding Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, and stating "content not suitable for an encyclopedia" after voting for a deletion. This section is not simple, because lazy people don't click that little WP:NOT link disguised as the word "not". They just assume that description best fits their feelings. Do you see where I'm coming from? Why is it okay for users to vote for a deletion without providing rationale? That should be unacceptable. And yet it happens time and time again without any consequence. It gets so old. I'm tired of people who shouldn't be allowed to vote voting. If you can't give a reason for your vote, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. WP:NOT is NOT a reason for deletion, it is a page of what Wikipedia is not. That page has sections that may or may not apply to an article. You know, the more time I spend here the more I remember how George Bush is president. (Mind meal 12:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
I do see where you are coming from, but speaking as an admin, afd is not a vote, so if the rational has not been explained or is ambiguous then I would probobly ignore it in my close. ViridaeTalk 12:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Now come on. I've seen too many cases where such votes are counted up as consensus and an article is deleted. Just because you might ignore it certainly does not mean that is the norm here. Often these votes are treated as the final say, you know that. (Mind meal 12:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
If that is the case, then deletion review is your recourse. The best option would be to ask them to explain what they mean if they are being ambiguous. However telling them they must explain is in my opinion making the process overly bureaucratic. ViridaeTalk 12:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Why should someone have the power of a vote if they cannot provide a reason that is specific in regards to the article in question. It is like me saying, Delete Violation of Wikipedia. Lmao. I don't need anything reviewed, because I never had my work deleted. What happened is I spent days defending my work instead of adding content. Look, if someone wants to bring it on with reason I'm all game. At least they demonstrate they have taken the time to understand the issues. But if someone wants to nominate an article for deletion with rationale derived from an essay; or just their whim....wtf? Why is that allowed? (Mind meal 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Require discussion before deletion

Per the discussion above I would like to make a formal proposal to initiate discussion before deletion. Too many AfD's are based on faulty assumptions, or are so unfocused, that they are completely counter-productive. Also the issue of AfD's initiated just minutes after creation of an article needs to be addressed. Any editor who thinks an article needs to be deleted should make their concerns known on the article's talk page, and apply an appropriate tag first. Then the article would be eligible for AfD only after waiting a reasonable length of time (not to be specified explicitly) to allow others to participate in a discussion, and/or address the concerns by editing the article. This would not affect other types of deletion such as speedy or prod, because they have separate procedures that generally require prior notification on the article. But if they were contested, then a post to the talk page would be needed before moving to AfD. Because the AfD process takes a few days already, adding a day or two is not a big deal, and if it avoids unnecessary AfD's, or produces a more focused AfD discussion leading to consensus (either way) instead of no-consensus, then it is well worth the extra time. Editors who want to comment on the AfD can collect from the talk page additional data points on which to base their comments, rather than shooting from the hip, which will also help address the issue of early comments being contradicted by later comments. WP is supposed to be a collaborative project, and this would foster collaboration over confrontation in addressing article inclusion issues. Dhaluza 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support I agree, as too often the only people voting here are AFD regulars and deletionists. People who generally don't even understand the specific articles, or the actual policies or guidelines that GOVERN them. How many times have you seen someone vote without a rationale for deletion? Or "per above" when that 'per above" provided no rationale! I'll go a step further. We need a way to involve more people in the discussion. I believe a boiler-plate text should be sent out to anyone who has edited the article stating that it is now up for deletion. I also propose anyone who fails to provide a rationale based on a guideline or policy should subsequently fail to be counted. (Mind meal 13:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Support - Possibly also a notification to the projects involved, tho this could wait for the formal AfD. - BillCJ 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While the idea is good inthoery, it just makes afd even more overly bureaucratic in reality. I would be happy for someone to draft some wording that encourages people to discuss the issue first, but not forcing the issue. Yes there are times when a disucssion would help the article - many articles are improved in afd because of the threat of imminent deletion. However there are many articles that almost unquestionably should be deleted, but don't fit under the speedy deletion policy. ViridaeTalk 23:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then the discussion should bear that out, and the article might even be SNOWed soon after the AFD starts. But I fail to see how requiring people to discuss an article first is harmful. THe problem is that too many editors jump to file AFDs, when the article's problems could be solved without going to an AFD. We're just trying to avoid unnecessary AFDs, which take up time better spent on improving an article. Last night, I was trying to stop a disruptive editor from adding unsourced POV material to an article, and even posted comments on the talk page. I woke up this morning to find the page had been AFDed by editor not involved in the page. We did finally reach a solution, and the AFD was withdrawn. It should be common sense to check an article's history and talk pages to see if other editors are trying to fix an article. However, since discussions aren't required, many editors feels they don't have to discuss at all. Hence our proposal. - BillCJ 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how initiating a non-binding discussion first is bureaucratic--it's collaborative, which is what a Wiki is. Using the talk page first would not hinder deletion of articles that should be deleted, in fact I believe it will facilitate the process. Issues should not be first raised in an AfD discussion. The talk page is a tool for discussing an article, and that tool should be used before AfD. Dhaluza 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: AfDs are discussion, not voting, despite assertions in previous sections. The proposal would introduce unnecessary complication and would be a goldmine for those who like Wiki-lawyering. Valid deletions would be thwarted because somebody would claim that there wasn't discussion or sufficient discussion before the AfD. Further, most AfDs are preceded by some discussion and review when a Speedy Delete tag is placed and a "hangon" tag is replied, or for a ProD, or when Template:Notability tags are placed. As Wikipedia has matured it has swung from inclusionist to deletionist and this is fit and proper since the most noteworthy stuff already has articles and the new articles tend to be less and less noteworthy as the encyclopedia progresses. Extra bureaucracy will gum up the works. Discussion should be encouraged but not required before entering AfD discussions. Hu 04:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this is a non-notable point, and smacks of WP:LIKE. It should be deleted. Does that sound like a discussion to you?? - BillCJ 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Like my two colleagues above, I oppose as stated, -- not because its wrong, but because its too much of a complicated and heavy-handed way of doing it. We already require discussion before deletion--the need is to improve the quality and participation in the discussion, and adding another stage will not help this. Many afds already end up in an improved article, and this should be encouraged. A more frequent use of continuing them a second week would help. Nor do we now count votes--we judge good arguments by the number of people who think them good, which ought to be another matter. Frequently there isnt enough discussion, or a debate is closed by count rather than by policy--and this should be addressed by a much more frequent use of deletion review, and a wider general participation in it.I proposed going one step at a time, and the first step is to require notifying all significant contributors. A bot is a crude way of doing it, and might generate too many notices, so Im not sure just how to work it. But notification should be absolutely required, and afds should not be not listed until they are notified. Perhaps the way to do it is a group of clerks, as is used at Arb Com. Some of the more experienced people do some of this already as they can, but it's hit and miss. Lets try something like this first. I certainly have been advocating reform in afd proceedure since I came here--I am very glad something is moving, but I have been here long enough to know it has to be done slowly, as attitudes change. DGG (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Your suggestions are good, and they are certainly better than nothing. If all we get out of this discussion is to implement your suggestions, then that is a step toward improving things. To address the point of adding another layer to the bueracracy, it may actually eliminate the AFD entirely for many aritcles, which saves everyone a lot of time. The article can be improved without the axe of deletion hagning over its head, or it may be merged to another article (with or without discussion on merging, depending on the circumstances). Too many people seem to view AFDs as a sacred act, rather than as one of many processes or tools to use to improve Wikipedia. An AFD should be a last resort, not a first one. Yes, there are articles that have no business being here, but don't qualify for CSDs or PRODs, but I can't see them as being the majority. Most problems can be fixed without the need for an AFD, if people would just take the time to talk about it first. - BillCJ 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • When someone starts an AfD, they are asking the entrie WP community to join them in a discussion. What is wrong with the community asking the nominator to start a discussion on the article talk page first? Dhaluza 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (<g>) And what difference does it make if the AfD and reason are posted on the talk page as well as on the article, which would meet the "discussion" "requirement". (It would also significantly add to the burden in nominating Wikipedia:walled gardens, as well as scattering the discussion, making it less likely improvements would be made, or seen if made.) Notification is a different matter, but unless done by a bot of some sort, even if the nominator selects the people to be notified (eliminating bot edits, typo correction, vandalism, and clear removal of vandalism from the edit history), it provides an unreasonable burden on the nominator. Also, it's claimed that some users are banned from other user's talk pages, and they would then be unable to nominate those editors' articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would oppose this, mostly per user:DGG. Talk page discussions tend to be less organised, and sometimes are hard to find on a long page. I think I would support making it mandatory to notify the talk page of any project with their banner on the article (which would not affect all that many I guess). Also note that at CfD the notice only goes on the category page, which hardly anybody typically has edited or is watching. Personally I would like to see talk page bot notices on all articles in affected categories, and/or notification to related projects or "main relevant articles". Johnbod 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have several points regarding this.
  1. I'm getting tired of the deletionist/inclusionist distinction. Hardly anyone I've come across has views that are really that simple, except for the "wikipedia should be a repository of all knowledge" types, who are of course free to start their own wiki.
  2. More to the point, an AfD discussion pulls in fresh eyes; the article regulars will tend to contribute if they want to, as they'll be aware of it through their watchlist. Discussion on a talk page will tend to be rather one-sided.
  3. On the side point of notifying wikiprojects, I think this definitely should be done in the case of AfD.
  4. It's just more WP:CREEP.
I think that covers my thoughts pretty well. SamBC 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion on a talk page will tend to be rather one-sided. - Uh, the whole point here is not to decide if an AFD should be done, but to see if the problems leading to the desire to nominate a page for AFD can be solved without an AFD. If the nominator feels the discussions are one-sided, and not going anywhere, he/she is free to file the AFD. But if the regular editors are willing to solve the problem, that avoids the need for the AFD at all. And won't that reduce the bueracracy in the long run? - BillCJ 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A bot could notify WikiProjects if the links have a standarized form. It's a good idea, and XfD's other than AfD's may need more notifications, which probably cannot be done by someone who hadn't been watching the category/template for some time, as the information as to who uses categories and templates is not available in Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification this proposal does not address notifying editors or projects directly. It is limited to raising issues on the talk page first, before bringing them to AfD. Dhaluza 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't begin to explain just how creepy this idea is, but Hu and Arthur Rubin did a pretty good jobs at it. Must we require a discussion about having a discussion? AfD is its own filter and I honestly don't think requiring a pre-discussion discussion ahead of an AfD will actually help what you see as faulty deletion nominations. As Hu has stated, it would be a constant source of Wiki-lawyering in order to overturn valid deletions. Just like notification of a WikiProject or the major contributors, it should never be a requirement. --Farix (Talk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DGG, but with a few exceptions. I have participated, both as Ispy1981 and under this name, in roughly two to three hundred AfDs. First off, I think that the nominator should extend the courtesy of letting the author of the article know when their article is up for deletion. Second, I don't know if a second week is needed, but a full week of discussion should be implemented. Third, except in cases of obvious WP:SNOW, I think the discussion should take place for the full alloted time. Quite often, discussions are closed too early, often leading to another discussion on DRV. I think the load on DRV would be lightened if we allowed for the full time.--Sethacus 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh what bureaucratic nonsense! An AfD is a discussion. You want to make it mandatory now on Wikipedia to hold discussions about discussions? Bollocks! And since when do we hold silly bloody half-arsed votes on this talk page about major changes to deletion policy? --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony civility please. This is a good faith concern, even if you and I believe it is misguided, that doesn't warrant the use of language like that. ViridaeTalk 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of incivility, it's a matter of saying plainly: this is bollocks. Having said that we can move on to more important concerns. --Tony Sidaway 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but your language left a lot to be desired. There are politer ways of expressing your sentiment than that. Please remember to use them. ViridaeTalk 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, an AFD is a discussion about deleting an article, not solving its problems! What we are proposing is a discussion to address the concerns of the nominator regarding an article, which may be able to be addressed without deletion, such as through merging or expansion. Most AFDs last about a week; some problems could be solved in just a few hours through discussion. What's your goal here: good articles, or more AFDs? - BillCJ 21:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
that isnt what it should be. And Afd is a discussion about what to do with an article, with the proposed remedy being deletion because there seems to better option. During the discussion, people supporting the article either suggest better options, or explain why it is OK as is or with minor improvements, and those supporting deletion either agree that there is another option or explain why they wouldnt work, and in 5 days a consensus forms.
that's the theory. -- it does not always to even usually, work that way. But Tony from his viewpoint & I from my rather different one want to return it to that, as I know from previous discussions with him. (Tony, help in this--if there are proposed to be change in deletion policy this IS the place to discuss it. Obviously we would need wider community consensus, but this is exactly the right place to discuss a proposed change.)
Personally, when I have concerns with an article, and I think there is any chance of getting it through discussion, I do raise the question on the talk page. (I've just finished doing just that in two or three places) It works maybe one-quarter of the time. Other people do just the same--look around, there are thousands of such discussions in progress. that's the purpose behind WP:BOLD--if you want improvements, make them, and then work out a compromise. For the ones that cant or wont be improved, then there;s afd. But when I come across an article that I do not think can be improved, I afd directly and say so.

What is needed is more participation, and more intelligent participation in the existing methods. I'm at AfD a lot, and so is Tony--don't leave it up to us. come and propose improvements to articles. DGG (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem

Er, guys? Policy is most definitely not created or amended by voting on them, so can we please cut out the bold-faced supports and opposes? Thanks. Other than this, you're alluding to a problem without citing evidence of that problem, and your "solution" basically consists of discussing things in two different places in sequence (the talk page, then AFD), so I fail to see how that is much of an improvement. Yes, some AFDs are misguided, but no, this issue is not solved by starting similarly misguided discussions in other places. >Radiant< 11:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What Radiant said. If you want to discuss an article prior to the AFD, what do you think article talk pages are for? Neil ╦ 13:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture articles

Is anyone keeping a list of the AfDs of popular culture articles? Some of them have potential. I have little hope of stemming the tide of people who fail to see the distinction between a trivial list and a genuine article on cultural responses over decades or centuries (and in some cases millenia), or those who fail to distinguish between fictional and non-fictional topics, but some order would be nice. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is the poster child for how to handle this sort of material. Something similar could be done with Dinosaurs in popular culture, but the current AfD crowd seem ignorant of cultural studies. A distinction needs to be made between topics that have genuinely spawned a discernable legacy that has been commented on in reliable sources, and those where people are just aggregating trivia. I'm prepared to look back through the archives and gather a list, but first I thought I'd ask if there is an easy way to find "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/<insert name here> in popular culture" AfDs? And before anyone misunderstands my motivation, articles with potential would have trivia cleaned out, sources added, and clearly defined criteria (to exclude trivia) before being ressurrected. In most cases, this would be a complete rewrite and would not be circumventing the previous AfD. So, how best to gather a list of these AfDs? Carcharoth 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this advanced search on Google didn't find anything, though I expected searching under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ for pages with "in popular culture" in the title would have worked. BigNate37(T) 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec) AFD mentions from Google DRV mentions from Google. GRBerry 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I wasn't thinking. The internal Wikipedia search works very well here. Have a look at this. Carcharoth 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with how you referred to this as a tide of deletions (more like tidal wave!). It is requirement t::hat AfD's have proper discussion before an article gets deleted. As it stands now with the floods of related articles being nominated for deletion it is impossible for interested editors to properly discuss the deletions with the depth the articles and wikipedia deserve. Mathmo Talk 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been a fundamental misunderstand of WP policy--that deletion is the last resort in improving articles. The way to have encouraged improvement would have been to nominate one or two, encourage discussion by notifying all those working on the article and related articles, and, when it was clear that a major question of the appropriate nature of material for WP was involved, to have moved to a more general discussion. I've proposed a requirement for notification at the talk page for WP:AFD, and it is being strongly objected to as a/ not worth the work, and b/ aimed at getting excessive participation in Afd from people who presumably would want the articles kept. a/ can be done by a bot, and b/ is in my mind totally opposed to the point of having AfD discussions in the first place. DGG (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Carch - there are people that sort all AFDs into topical lists. If pop culture isn't already one of those, it could easily be added. >Radiant< 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. On an aside, I've noticed people sometimes fail to spell Carcharoth correctly, though that is only the second time someone's called me Carch. It sounds strange to me, Rad! :-P Carcharoth 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, although it is updated only sporadically. — Black Falcon (Talk) 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Bingo! Now, why was it so difficult to find that? :-) Carcharoth 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These in popular culture articles usually violate original research. For example, it appears that some read The Library of Babel, saw what they thought was a reference to Infinite monkey theorem, and then added that original research to Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. In addition, they usually violate WP:V because the entries are not referenced. Further, these list usually have no defined membership criteria as described at Wikipedia:Lists#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_lists. The effect is to create an article that violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And when they include biographical material, the raise WP:BLP issues. Essentially, these popular culture articles are likely to violate four of Wikipedia's five article standards policies. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all true. However, care should be taken to handle each individual case on its own merits. It is perfectly possible for an article on "foo in popular culture" not to meet these criticisms, and to be a decent article, especially in cases where there has been prior study on the phenomenon. That said, I don't think I've seen any such articles, more's the pity. SamBC(talk) 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notifications of proposed deletions

Sometimes people who have edited articles are notified when someone proposes their deletion. That is a good idea because those who edit an article often know something about the topic and can add relevant information not available elsewhere. Sometimes WikiProjects are notified for the same reason. However, I've been told by a number of people that deletion policies do not recommend such notices. Since there are clear reasons why such notifications are useful, I think this page ought to recommend it.

(Some legalistically inclined people have even made a point of saying that the lack of such a recommendation here should be given weight as a reason not to do it! One should improve Wikipedia only by doing what's required or at least recommended by promulgated guidelines, not by what common sense tells you would improve it.) Michael Hardy 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I've been told the same thing, and not as nicely - they usually flat-out call it canvassing! With certian types of AFDs, howeve, I've found that simply listing the AFD on the required list page for AFDs is tantamount to canvassing. To me, the primary contributors should be notified, if possible, and the project(s) which the article falls under should be also. I've been involved in enough AFDs of WP:AIR pages to know there is a WIDE variety of opinion of whether certain pages should exist or be deleted, and I strongly suspect it's true in other projects as well. Most importantly though, project have the most experience with those kind of articles, and it is silly to exclude notification of them. Notification of projects should be explicitly allowed, even recommended, if not required, without fear of accusations such as canvassing by others. - BillCJ 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The way to avoid accusations of canvassing is to notify everyone likely to be involved.Even if we are not to require notification--as I very strongly think we should--it should be stated unambiguously that notifying all significant recent editors, or projects, is both permitted and encouraged. It is a incorrect assumption that this will lead to the keeping of unworthy article--who are more likely to recognize the non-notable than those involved with the subject field? who are more likely to want that the subject they care about be properly represented by good articles? who would not want their input? DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The way to avoid accusations of canvassing is to notify everyone likely to be involved.
Notifying those likely to be involved is just what got me accused of "canvassing", although I didn't urge them to keep the article, only to express their opinions on whether it should be kept. And what's wrong with canvassing anyway? It seems to me there are common-sense reasons why canvassing could be good for Wikipedia in general. Michael Hardy 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Canvassing and associated talk might be worth reading. GRBerry 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If any such wording is added to the deletion policy, it must be very explicitly stated that such is a recommendation and in no way a requirement. On general principle I have to oppose the inclusion of this kind of recommendation as placing too much a burden on the nominator. How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article? I can understand if someone wants to notify the projects that are listed on the article's talk page, but even that is less self-evident than picking out editors. An editor's interest in an article is obvious based upon edit history, whereas the rather boilerplate {{Project Whatever}} tags can be added at a single editor's discretion and do not necessarily reflect interest on behalf of the community.
For what it is worth, I believe that the issues people have had in the past with notifying Wikiprojects being tantamount to canvassing is due to a concern that while visitors to an AfD tend to represent a broader cross-section of editors and (at least ideally) be less biased in any one direction, the involvement of a project has the potential to flood a discussion with one subset of editors who typically share a point of view and will thus taint the discussion in that direction.
Personally I am not a fan of notifications of any kind - people with a genuine interest in an article will have it watchlisted and be made aware of the nomination (assuming the proper procedure is followed). Many Wikiprojects have a scheme in place to create a notification for articles they care to "watch" as well. I see no need to broadcast the fact to a group of people who might be interested who otherwise show little to no interest in the development of said article. I do not support notifying Wikiprojects as it has the potential to foment a sense of project ownership over an article or a set of articles. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In my own experience with AFD, the statement "the involvement of a project has the potential to flood a discussion with one subset of editors who typically share a point of view and will thus taint the discussion in that direction." sounds rather humorous to me. I have found that many deletionists are regulars of that board, and thus have a systematic bias when voting. Moreover, these deletionists rarely are "experts" on the subjects they are proposing for deletion. I have seen many valuable lists, for instance, get canned due to ignorance on the part of such editors who have assumed an article is "unencyclopediac". This sort of proposition will get more people involved with AFD in general, doing away with "debates" amongst like-minded deletionists with user boxes stating that much. Often it is a matter of an individual not understanding rocket science, and thus assuming their ignorance equals lack of criteria for inclusion. (Mind meal 07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article?

By using common sense. They're not required to be infallible or omniscient. It's just something that might help improve Wikipedia. It is always a good idea to call the existence of any article to the attention of those likely to be able to contribute to it and improve it. Michael Hardy 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and observe the practical utility: by notifying those interested, one avoids a possible later need to got to a deletion review, which would only complicate things and make more work necessary. Michael Hardy 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article?
By checking the talk page! Most projects have headers that are posted at the top of the page. If there's not one because it's a new article (especially if it was only created 2 minutes before the AFD was filed! - really happened!), then a good editor would check articles on a similar topic to see what project those articles were in ,and then notify them. - BillCJ 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason these are frequently called canvassing, is because the "notifications" way too often take the form of messages like "those $#$%ing %&*$#s are trying to delete our great article! You must come here now and vote to keep it!" >Radiant< 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And therefore a standardized wording is desirable. The templates for all three methods of deletion have such a notice, if only people would simply use it. DGG (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of certain groups or certain users being "interested in" an article; it's a matter of certain groups and certain users being knowledgeable about the subject and therefore able to contribute. Michael Hardy 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: What got me accused of "canvassing" shortly before I posted this proposal here, is simply that I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics of a proposed deletation, without urging the to support or to oppose deletion. Michael Hardy 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed clarification of wording of the policy

I am unsure of the current policy on deletion and was unable to clarify by reading the deletion policy. I propose to clarify the wording of the policy.

My question was this: Is not being notable a reason for deletion?

And I now refer to the following "reason for deletion":

I note and assert that this line is currently the most definitive statement on whether or not being non-notable is a reason for deletion. (If not, please simply redirect me to a more definitive statement which I may have missed.)

The reason I believe it needs clarification is this: it does not include WP:N in the list.

I believe that this means that those who originally wrote it, and many of those who have expressly or impliedly agreed with it since, meant and interpreted it as meaning only that the notability sub-guidelines were reasons for deletion, and that non-notability for regular articles (such as Commit_charge, for example), is not a reason for deletion.

I believe that either WP:N needs to be included in this list of notability guidelines, or it needs to be specifically excluded.

Whatever the answer, I expect that the result will be controversial (unless I've just missed something, of course!), so I suggest we discuss it on this page until a consensus is reached, before changing the policy page. -- BenBildstein 05:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that the words "notability guideline" are linked to {{Notabilityguide}} (via a redirect), and that WP:N is the first item listed in that template. The implication is clear - WP:N is included, the others are examples of subject specific guidelines. GRBerry 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. In that case, I suggest we include WP:N in the list explicitly, to avoid doubt or confusion (such as mine). -- BenBildstein 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting non-notable content

I believe there is a problem with the list of "reasons for deletion". One of the listed reasons for deletion is "subject fails to meet the the relevant notability guideline". This seems to be the only reason on the list that would allow the deletion of content that is appropriate for Wikipedia. It seems to me that every other item on the list refers to content that should be removed from Wikipedia, while there is no reason to remove non-notable content.

I am not making an anti-notability argument. In fact, it was reading User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_things that made me realise this.

Let me clarify what I am saying. First, I believe everyone will agree that the other items on the reason list pertain to things that should be entirely removed from Wikipedia. However, the notability guideline says specifically that "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". That is, when a topic is not notable, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia; instead, it means it doesn't belong on its own page.

So unlike the other reasons for deletion, when we delete something purely because it is non-notable, we may be removing valid, useful, verifiable, encyclopedic, NPOV, properly sourced, well written content that is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.

I propose we change the policy on handling non-notable pages. I think the policy should be to merge the content of pages that have non-notable topics into other pages, so as not to lose this clearly valuable content. I believe this is more in line with the notability guideline. This would also necessitate changing Template:Notability to make the options "expand or merge", instead of "expand or delete".

Is this the right place to start a discussion on this proposed change? Can someone tell me what is the best way to progress this issue? -- BenBildstein 07:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the rare case a non-notable topic is brought up for deletion that contains well-sourced information that is relevant to a broader topic, it is usually merged to the appropriate article. This is a solution for a problem that does not exist, to my knowledge. Vassyana 08:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that has semi-agreement :)
Actually, I would think that every time a non-notable topic is deleted, we're deleting worthwhile content. The content policies say nothing about which topics are appropriate, and the notability guideline says nothing about content. But yes, if both the topic and the content are inappropriate, then both should be removed. -- BenBildstein 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your initial statement is self-contradictory. Subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guideline are, de facto, inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest you spend a day or two at new page patrol to see what the actual problem is here. >Radiant< 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(I'm not sure which statement you are saying is contradictory, but...) I believe you are wrong that "subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines are, de facto, inappropriate for Wikipedia." See WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, which is also quoted below. Such subjects are not "notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article", but "Notability guidelines [...] do not specifically regulate the content of articles". And also: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." -- BenBildstein 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of the term saying that notability doesn't limit article content isn't saying that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted, AIUI, it's saying that as long as the subject of an article is notable, anything relevant to that subject can go in the article regardless of whether that particular info is notable. That is, notability limits the subject of the article, but not the content. SamBC(talk) 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As an addendum to the above, the content is limited, but chiefly by verifiability coupled with neutral point of view.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the relevant part of the notability guideline:
"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."
I believe this makes it quite clear. I agree that it doesn't say that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted. I'm saying that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted. If there is content that's only failing is being written into a page that's topic doesn't satisfy WP:N, I say we should make every effort not to delete that content. -- BenBildstein 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There is already guidance that it's better to merge, and possibly redirect, in many cases. Of course, the information still has to be verifiable and NPOV. SamBC(talk) 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of AfDs in which a merge or transwiki was the outcome. If the information is appropriate somewhere, but "on Wikipedia as a standalone article" is not that somewhere, those options are already available, either to move it to a parent or related article, or to move it off Wikipedia and to another project entirely. However, the vast majority of things deleted for non-notability fit neither category—they're not appropriate for any parent article (and may not be sourced at all) and aren't appropriate for any other project either. Just because information is verifiable, not original research, and neutral does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate for its own article, or for any article. Remember, we're all editors here, and an important function of an editor is to cut. Deleting and removing things is not in and of itself bad, it's just as necessary a maintenance task as copyediting and correcting misspellings. What notability helps to do is answer the question "Alright, we know we need to cut sometimes, but what should we cut?" The answer is, "Things no reliable sources have bothered to take any significant note of." We reflect reliable sources, we don't second-guess them, and we're not a first publisher. So when reliable sources have chosen not to publish anything or much of anything about something, we reflect that by not doing so either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • BenBildstein, your logic has a fundamental mistake. While it is true that, under some circumstances, the content of a page on a non-notable subject can be merged into a page on a notable subject, in the overwhelming majority of cases it cannot, either as a result of guidelines on trivia or because no encyclopedic topic that could contain that information exists. While it is true that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, neither do they expand article content; content that is relevant only to a non-notable subject would have no home on Wikipedia with or without these guidelines. I could write a hundred-page article about every marking on my cat, providing detailed photographs, documentation from the vet, and careful verification of every point. The topic of my cat would still be unencyclopedic; though AFD is, under the current system, instructed to consider places where such information could be moved, it is plain that in cases such as these there is no place for it to go. If you think that this is an odd or unlikely example, you have not spent much time on newpages patrol. Additionally, you are wrong that notability is the only criteria that could potentially delete useful information. A hoax could contain a paragraph of truth; an article on a newly-coined word can often be merged into a larger article about slang. More to the point, all of WP:NOT is given as a valid reason for deletion... try looking over that some time. Plenty of articles that violate WP:NOT could contain (or even consist primarily of) information that could nonetheless be merged into an article on a more appropriate topic. This is why merging exists as an option on AFD... in all of these cases, though, as with notability, deletion must be preserved for cases when no appropriate target for merging exists, when existing content elsewhere is already superior, or for when merging is not a useful option for one of a number of other reasons. I also suggest you go back and read some of the older debates about notability... it has a long history, and a great deal of discussion went into the guidelines as they exist today. With so much discussion, you're unlikely to be able to argue them away by finding a point that has not already been discussed to death. --Aquillion 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave this for now, and try to come back to it when I feel more qualified. One way or the other. -- BenBildstein 02:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think non-notable articles when judged as such through vote, should not be deleted. Instead either replace the article (keeping the history) with a standard "Not Notable" page or move it to a "non-notable" section if keeping such articles around could clutter up the namespace. Some stuff may later turn out to be actually notable. I find it strange that the wikipedia keeps trivia on obscure tv shows and deletes many articles which seem to be important enough for _many_ people to argue about their deletion. You lose history and data when you delete, and the deletion process is fallible - sock puppets, censorship etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.62.101 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a serious problem with Wikipedia's current deletion policy that needs to be fixed with something like this. A huge problem is that the admins are elitist in determining that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes them. This is not acceptable when it's an article about a website that gets tens of thousands of regular viewers. Dozens of very popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to the internet traffic tracking service, had articles about them deleted by wikipedia.

In short, any website, blog or webcomic that a decent number of people may come to wikipedia to learn about deserves to not have the article on that website, blog or webcomic deleted and thus have nothing turn up from their search.

Wikipedia is fantastic in that it lets you find straightforward information about any topic. Wikipedia's contributors shouldn't be deleting articles about blogs and webcomics that recieve a decent amount of traffic just because they personally don't know about them. This is the definition of elitism. And it also weakens wikipedia's ability to serve as a useful straightforward reference on virtually any topic.

The single greatest strength of wikipedia is that it contains so much more information than brittanica and every other encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. This is a strength that should be emphasized and encouraged, not actively undermined by elitist "contributors" who decide that just because they personally haven't heard of a blog or a webcomic, means that the thousands that do don't matter, and that the dozens of visitors who stumble onto the blog or webcomic anew and who turn to wikipedia for information about it deserve to have nothing come back on the search.

I can't mention how many times I come to wikipedia nowadays to learn about a new site with a lot of users and contributors only to have no article come back because an elitist editor decided that the article on that site/blog/webcomic wasn't important enough to be included. Pushy elitist editors deleting articles left and right, this is a problem that's worse than ever.

I regularly contributed to wikipedia since it's inception. But I've stopped contributing as a result of this and have actively encouraged others to do so as well. And that's going to continue until wikipedia changes it's policy on deleting articles left and right.

People who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site deserve to find it. That's the entire point of wikipedia, to provide information on things that brittanica was too limited in scope to cover.

I adored the Wikipedia when it was first launched and I contributed to a number of articles, some extensively, and always anonymously. The Wikipedia then was a riot of contributors, each adding bits and pieces to the articles they were familiar with, with nary an admin or editor in sight. The Wikipedia was about articles and contributors. It was a fascinating source of information and the talk pages were often incredibly informative. You could have honest to god discussions there! You could build up an article with two or three anonymous contributors on the talk pages over days (or sometimes weeks). The Wikipedia WORKED.

The current Wikipedia is a very different beast--hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" who are more concerned with personal politics, the bureacracy of the beast, and minutae like "wikification" than contributing to articles. Nowadays the Wikipedia is all about the Wikipedia. Articles and contributors are caught in a vast bureaucratic clusterfuck. Articles in particular are "turf" to be fought over, to the great detriment of the people who actually contribute to them or use them. Edits are about notches in your belt, not adding content. Knowing an admin is more important than knowing your subject. Making an edit nowadays prompts threats and frequent reversions (or lockings) for no damned reason. It doesn't have to be controversial. You can correct the spelling of a species name and get chewed out for it. The talk pages, far from being about building consensus and putting togethr good articles, are bully pulpits for admins and connected editors. The NPOV and common courtesy have gone right out the window on talk pages, as shown by all the hyperbolic and downright paranoid rantings by admins here shows. "Hate site"? Please. I've seen hate sites, and Bagley/Byrn ain't it. "Jihad"? You must be joking.

Nowadays the Wikipedia community seems obsessed with the tangental side of the wiki: voting up admins, arguing about (usually pointless) policy, locking and unlocking articles, and pointless editing to enforce editorial unity ("This article has a trivia section--triva sections are discouraged because they're fun and interesting. Please consider rewriting the article to bury all these nifty facts under an avalanche of stilted faux academic prose in the main body of the article. Failing that, just delete the trivia, since traditional encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and we're bound to follow a fifteen-hundred year old dead tree paradigm, never mind that we're a twenty-first century hypertext website.") and stylistic monotony. The Wikipedia DOESN'T work. The Wikipedia is broken.

I'm inclined to think that the increasing toxicity of the community, coupled with power-drunk admins and people obsessed with the bureaucratic way of getting things done has finally gotten to the point where it drive more people away than come in.

There was a time when I logged over 1000 edits a month. Now I rarely bother to visit - not because there’s less work to do, but rather, because so much of what goes on there is unpleasant crap.

A frequently cited criticism of Wikipedia's Deletion policy is the manner in which an admin determines that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes the article written about the topic. As a result of this policy, several articles about popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to Alexa, many of which won critical praise had articles about them deleted by wikipedia. <references/http://www.webcomicker.com/?p=33> <references/http://comixtalk.com/terrence_markswikipedia_and_y> It was viewed as not acceptable my many webcomic authors and readers that articles about websites and webcomics that have tens of thousands of regular viewers are deemed as candidates for deletion as a result of an admin who is personally unfamiliar with the comic. Others found it counter intuitive that because of Wikipedia's deletion policy, users who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site were unable to find it. This seemed to go against what was traditionally considered one of Wikipedia's greatest assests, it's ability to provide information on topics that professional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia brittanica were too limited in scope to cover. Others view as a sign that Wikipedia has become too hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" and Wikipedia itself is becoming burdened by the bureacracy of of it's editing staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.41.35 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why there should not be an article for every blog and webcomic that has a few thousand visitors should be pretty obvious: Wikipedia does not exist to promote anyone's website, products or services. I've tagged a few articles about webcomics for deletion because they failed to assert their notability in any way. Actually, I usually tag garage bands that have never toured, signed with any record label, or had their music played on radio station outside of their hometown. Then there are small businesses that have no significant national or international sales, and have received no media coverage. Then there are the biographies of a living person who has no notable accomplishments. I've tagged a number of articles about people who currently have a job, some kids and a dog. So? I've even seen articles about people in their teens and early 20s whose primary accomplishment in life so far has been graduating from high school or university! Whatever the case, the article is usually created by the owner/artist to promote themselves, since basically no one has ever heard of them. There are six billion living people, tens of millions of small businesses, millions of bands, and thousands of webcomics. If a webcomic becomes famous enough that its content starts to be quoted or imitated, fan sites appear, and merchandise starts to be sold in stores, such as Homestar Runner, then it deserves an article. If a webcomic is only read by you and other people who go to the author's university, its scope or appeal is too narrow to merit an article on Wikipedia. If we lower the requirements to allow a biography of any person who has ever had a family, or an article about every blog, comic, band and business that operates out of someone's basement, Wikipedia could easily have 100 million articles by 2009! That would really mess with search results, and make it difficult for readers to tell which businesses/bands/blogs/comics have national or international appeal, and which ones have an audience mostly composed of people who live in the artist's dorm.
Wikipedia policies sometimes need improvement, and everyone is welcome to participate in that discussion. As for claiming that articles about webcomics are being deleted by elitist Admins... don't you think it's a bit elitist of you to think that you can determine which webcomics are notable enough to deserve an article? If you're an expert on webcomics, please feel free to contribute content to the webcomic article. Maybe you could add a list of "popular" webcomics that might have appeal to fans of the genre, but aren't notable enough to deserve their own article yet. As for your perception that the articles are being removed at the whim of individual Admins, that's probably not true in most cases. With the exception of articles that are so obviously frivolous that they qualify for speedy deletion (patent nonsense, vandalism, etc), articles are proposed for deletion, usually by regular editors (since Administrators represent a tiny, um, elite fraction of all editors), and everyone in the world has at least 5 days to state an opinion. If, after 5 days, no one has made a strong case for why the article shouldn't be deleted, then an Administrator is free to delete the article because the people have spoken. What I'm saying is that articles are generally deleted at the will of the people, not the whim of a single Admin. If you feel that an Admin has acted inappropriately in deleting some article, please bring it to the Admin's attention, and if you're not satisfied with his or her response, then bring it to the community's attention. Maybe you're right and disciplinary action should be taken. But remember, an Admin isn't a vandal just because he deletes an an article that you think is notable! If they really are in the wrong, the rest of us are smart enough to come to that conclusion. There are more checks and balances on Wikipedia than there are in any government. Where else can absolutely anyone have a say in virtually any aspect of policy? There are some aspects of policy which I think could be more democratic but, for the most part, this is as good as it gets. DOSGuy (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speedy keep

What's a speedy keep, where is it mentioned on this page? Pdbailey 16:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't exactly a formal thing, although I think some guidelines have been written about it somewhere. It's just when an AFD is closed early for one reason or another (most commonly when it doesn't have any 'good-faith' supporters, including the nominator--say, if someone nominated George W. Bush or Israel for deletion, it would be obvious the nomination was in bad faith, so it would be speedy-kept.) It's not generally supposed to happen in cases where there's any real dispute, though. Wikipedia:Speedy keep has some background... it's more of detail of how WP:AFD operates than a part of the deletion policy, though, so it isn't covered here. --Aquillion 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:CSK. Basically, cases where we've determined that it is ok to close a deletion discussion early and keep the article/page. Examples include "nobody wants it deleted" and "proposal was made by someone who is not allowed to edit". It is a very limited set. GRBerry 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, it was also used for World's largest airlines where I failed to fill in the form right and was given less that 24 hours to correct it. As such, I'd say it bears mention. Pdbailey 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When a deletion nomination is closed early as "keep", it's a speedy keep. This can be because of WP:CSK, WP:SNOW, or just because it's the right thing to do in a particular situation. If you disagree with one, you should contact the admin who closed it and discuss it with that person. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, does the person have to be an admin? Because it looks like the person who closed it wasn't, maybe I'm wrong. You can check at [1] Pdbailey 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, in practice anyone can close uncontroversial "keep" AfDs, although usually it's only admins and people who plan to become admins who do so. The point about speedy keeps is they should only be done when it is blatantly obvious the article will not get deleted or that the nomination itself is inappropriate for some reason. If they get disputed, the result will just be to reopen the AfD in which case the speedy keep was a waste of time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This whole process might be detailed in the policy. Pdbailey 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I note that non-admins who close AfDs without very clear reason to do so have sometimes been strongly criticized for it in their RfA's when they later apply to be administrators. DGG (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] was the policy followed?

I nominated an article for deletion and failed to fill in a reason (I could have sworn I had!) and a "speedy keep" ensued within 24 hours. This suggests to me that this encyclopedia is largely for the editing by the often editors, and I'm not invited, but maybe I'm not. Anyway, there is no firm 5 day policy on this page and it conflicts with the guide in this respect. Clarity might be nice Pdbailey 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Speedy keep above. An article can be speedy-kept if nobody, including the nominator, supports deletion. Speedy keeps aren't precident, so you can just open it again with a reason. The person who closed it could maybe have contacted you first, but it's not that big of a deal, since you can just fix it and re-open it. (Now, if it had anyone saying that the article should be deleted, that's different. But, anyway, it's easy to re-open it.) --Aquillion 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually reopened it and another editor closed it, maybe? As above, it's world's largest airlines. Pdbailey 17:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keeps can be done for various reasons other reasons so long as the speedy closure is obviously correct. Remember WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#ANARCHY, either. When in doubt, go through the process. --Aquillion 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Carl, I'm going to add again that putting them in the policy might make sense since (a) there appears to be policy in your mind regarding them and (b) not everyone knows that policy. Why have policy pages at all if the whole policy isn't going to appear on them? Pdbailey 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason why it isn't here is because it is more of a minor detail of how AFD works than a major part of deletion policy in its own right. The entire Deletion discussion section is only a few paragraphs long, and provides almost no details on specific processes or how articles are generally handled or anything like that; the appropriate place is WP:AFD itself. The issue was that you were looking here for up-close-and-personal information on how the process of AFD operates, when this article is really more of a thousand-foot view of the overall spirit of the entire policy on deletion. It is worth noting that the concept of speedy keeps has sometimes been controversal; editors will often call for one on controversal articles that they want kept. The intent of Wikipedia:Speedy keep was more to try and discourage people from calling for speedy keeps in any but the most obvious and straightforward cases than to codify it as a practice... that is likely why it remains unmentioned anywhere else. Normally, when a speedy keep is called for, it should be so obvious that no guidelines are necessary; in cases where there is any actual, good-faith dispute, short-circuiting discussion and debate should usually be discouraged. Your case was really more of a procedural keep than a traditional speedy one... the issue was basically that your nomination was malformed and incomplete. It doesn't call for all this discussion. --Aquillion 07:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
When you have an article that's ten thousand feet, and you don't have a close up view, it is very jarring for the reader and severely reduces how well it can be understood. Maybe that's the point or it's okay to keep most editors in the dark about the process, I don't know. Pdbailey 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that the deletion process here is arcane. People have tried to document most of it - look at the see also section of this policy page. Where would you have found a link to Wikipedia:Speedy keep? We can easily put a link to it there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Carl, that sounds like a great idea. Pdbailey 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy Blanking of Arbitration Decisions

It seems to me that there needs to be a policy for courtesy blanking of arbitration-related pages if it is to become standard practice. Jfwambaugh 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing there covering non-heated, non-libelious discussions. If courtesy blanking is going to be used to protect users who have arbitrated against from turning up in google searches, then WP:CBLANK needs to be modified. Jfwambaugh 13:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Or, it could be the proverbial exception. At any rate, the ArbCom blanking a decision page is unrelated to the policy governing article deletion. >Radiant< 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
All of these pages are not archived by search engines, so I've removed this section. This can be handled case-by-case, lets not run afoul of WP:BURO. Prodego talk 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added it back. AFDs are not supposed to be spidered but not all search engines honor robot.txt. Courtesy-blanking is rare (and should probably be even rarer) but it's still sometimes appropriate. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree there are (rare) instances for this to be used, but does it really need to be spelled out? Also, if a search engine ignores robots.txt and indexes a page it shouldn't, it will probably also index all of the other pages, including every revision in the history. Prodego talk 05:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd probably want to talk to one of the Developers to be sure but I thought that there was a technical reason why the search engines can't/don't spider into our pagehistory. I remember seeing it come up in discussion one time but don't remember where. Sorry I can't be more help. Rossami (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It is because they are told not to archive pages with a /w/ in the url (as opposed to /wiki/) in robots.txt, the same file that excludes pages like AfD and RfA. Prodego talk 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkbird

The above referenced page and its contents are confusing to me. Could someone who understands the whole deletion process please take a look? I have tried this message elsewhere with no action. Thanks in advance! --Stormbay 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be saying that a whole set of pages have been merged into another, and is thus proposing the deletion of the original set of pages. Or is the whole process of AfD the point of confusion? SamBC(talk) 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Then all the individual articles listed above should be turned into redirects instead of sitting with afd tags? I was confused because the tags didn't lead to an afd discussion. They should have been removed and redirects done; correct? --Stormbay 03:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, if they really have been merged then it's reasonable to be bold and replace the articles with redirects and then there's no need for AFD at all. However, procedurally speaking, now that the AfD has been started it's supposed to run its course (although an admin could close early if there's a consensus to redirect). The AFD templates should be repaired to point to the actual discussion, if they currently don't. AIUI, anyway. SamBC(talk) 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate your input. However, I don't know how to repair the template. Thanks! --Stormbay 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, a quick check of a few of them seems to indicate that they're working fine. SamBC(talk) 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
AfD closed - it's totally unnecessary, we don't delete redirects after merges, due to GFDL compliance. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they should've been redirects in any case, but at the time that the AfD was started they weren't, they were still the full articles. However, let this stand as a point for people who don't yet realise to learn from - after a merge, the original article(s) will become a redirect in almost all circumstances. Is this not clear enough in policies/guidelines/help pages? SamBC(talk) 11:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

I've seen a handful of cases where cleanup templates were removed by noms for prod/csd, etc. Not something that really makes a lot of sense to me - is there a valid reason to do so? Not seeing one mentioned here, at first glance, and can't think of any myself. They seem to back up any nom. (Do they do so to excess?) MrZaiustalk 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion policy is not a method to force article improvement

something should be said that if you think the article needs improvement or could be improved, do not use afd. people are using afd to bully other people into improving articles or having those deleted. that is not a good use of deletion. it is not clear that it is not a good use of deletion on the page. it should say 'do not nominate articles that need improvement, if you can figure out how to make the article better, do that first' the deletion pages are full of things that have citations available, but people nominate for deletion. that's a problem because it deletes good work and good faith effort. --Buridan 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. But unfortunately I see lots of articles tagged on top and on bottom, and nobody rushes to address the iussues posted. Only the ultimate threat of deletion makes people move.

I would suggest a wider use of threatening tags of kind {{notability}}, which explicitely warns that if the issues will not be addressed, the articler may be deleted. IMO the same explicite warning must be added to {{unreferenced}} and others. ("unreferened" says: "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." But if a template is placed onto the whole article, not on section, it must explicitely say that the whole article is a fair game for the AfD).

Also I would suggest to write explicitely in the policy that new artickles and articles significantly editied only by 1-3 editors (typo fixing, tagging, categorizing, etc. don't count), then the article should not be genetrally nominated for deletion without preceding warning, unless the article is really harmful for wikipedia.

Any thoughts?Mukadderat 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why create different rules for different articles? Instruction creep is something to avoid. Wikipedia's rules are complicated enough already. --Phirazo 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
there is also no indication that the wording of a tag has any effect. what does have an effect is individual WPedians fixing articles and then sending them for deletion only if they can not find decent sources. DGG (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DGG. WP:SOFIXIT is the proper response to an article that needs improvement. If you are not willing or able to do the work yourself, then move on. Leave a tag to inform others of what you found if you think it is necessary. But nominating it for AfD to force others to do what you won't is wiki-bullying and should be strongly discouraged. AfD is for hopeless cases only. Dhaluza 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Faraway Ancient Country

An Admin used Speedy Deletion to delete my article. After I proved it did not quaillify for Speedy Deletion, he refused to undelete it. Here is a copy from his talk page. He has began to give petty replies and is tring to ignore the subject instead of admitting he jumped to the conclusion.

"I was told you deleted my article because you thought I was avertising it. It's a good book that I picked up off of Google books. What is wrong with making a page about it? --JRTyner 02:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an advertisement for a non-notable self-published book. IrishGuy talk 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I bought it after reading the newspaper article, I was adding sources when you deeted it. --JRTyner 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, it was an advertisement for a non-notable self-published book. A single article in a local paper from the author's hometown doesn't make notability. IrishGuy talk 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And again I'm telling you that you didn't give me a chance to list references or external links. You deleted my first article without even giving me a chance to defend it. I'm just asking for the chance to defend a book that I like. --JRTyner 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does a non-notable self-published book meet the inclusion criteria? IrishGuy talk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your case must be extremely weak, seeing as you have changed your argument. First, you said it was "Blatant advertisement." Next, you changed tack and said it was a self published book by an unknown author. You then said it did not meet the "Inclusion criteria," and provided a link. The link was to the EXCLUSION criteria, under which my article does not fall. --JRTyner 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it was an advertisement, hence the deletion. YOU continue to claim that sources would have made the difference. I am asking exactly how. IrishGuy talk 01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

The article was about a book I bought off of Google books. The artlce took no sides, and didn't promote the book in any way, even though I thought it was interesting and funny. All of the other books I like already have a page, so I thought this would be a good subject for my first article. The page had no links or information on how to buy the book. I didn't even mention how I bought it. I had put a brief summary, a few facts the aurthor had mentioned in a news paper article and and listed on her website, plus the catagory. I had just added the publisher's name, the ISBN number, how long the book is, and a few other encyclopedic facts when it was deleted. --JRTyner 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because there was not an ounce of truth in your last reply. That was the first time I had seen that page. The only simularity in that discription and mine is "four years of research, 80 sources, 190 Biblical passages, and the efforts of three theologians, each with a Master's Degree in Divinity", and that I got from her website, and I cited it, so there is no copyright violation. You are trying to bend the Wikipedia rules because you are biased against this book. --JRTyner 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the book. How exactly would I be biased against it? You are wasting my time. You blatantly advertised a book you want more people to read...as evident by the fact that you won't let it go. You violated copyright. This would fail in AfD because, as I have already noted, it fails WP:BOOK. We are done here. Stop harassing me. IrishGuy talk 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"How exactly would I be biased against it?" You're biased against Catholics, or women who write about their faith.
I have proved using the Wikipedia definition that it is not advertisment.
I won't let it go because you are being a bigot.
You know I properly cited it so I didn't violated copyright.
"This would fail in AfD because, as I have already noted, it fails WP:BOOK." Then as an Admin, you must undelete it and follow proper AFD guidelines.
"This would fail in AfD because, as I have already noted, it fails WP:BOOK." I already proved it does not fail WP:BOOK, and even if it did, it would quailify for AFD not speedy delete.
"We are done here. Stop harassing me." You know I'm not harassing you. We are discussing the deletion of my article, and you are throwing this out because you know I proved you wrong and you don't want to admit it because you are biased, which means you should not have deleted it in the first place. Biased admins are not allowed to use their power to further their intolerance. --JRTyner 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC) "

--JRTyner 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that what I am looking for is a third party to mediate so this disscusion won't become uncivil. --JRTyner 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for mediation, nor is it deletion review. I think it became uncivil the first time you called me a bigot. IrishGuy talk 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I appoligised for that but you were treating the book with hatred and intolerance. Then you started deleting by replies which is against the rules. --JRTyner 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article must be restored, because Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a guideline, not a binding policy. This is one word against another. Admins do not have any editing privileges begore other wikipedians. The intolerance to a fellow wikipedian is a bad trait of an admin. Why don't you retore it, give the contributor a chance and then put for deletion? Mukadderat 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This case deserves to be discussed in the "Deletion policy" page. It is not the first time I see such hard intolerance to a newcomer. During a year I am an editor, wikipedia has notable shifted towards impatience and intolerance. What is it: new generation of admins? Fatifue of admins that are so tired that don't see to talk with other people? I think that Speedy Deletion has become quite misused. Even {{prod}} taf is supposed to sit 5 days. But here click, surprize! Yo are dead! Speedy was intended to deal with utter garbage. Any minimally disputable cases must go via community. No one is allowed to feel an ultimate unbeatable judge. Mukadderat 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that Wikipedia:Notability (books) in its first lines says failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.. Also, CSD A7 lists "person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content", but not books, shops, electircal devices, brands, horse breeds, etc. It lists (and rightly so) only the most common vanity cases. Mukadderat 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the style in which it was deleted might have been harsh (I'm no expert on deleting things) it does seem hard to defend an entry for the book at this time as Google doesn't even pop much sources. Perhaps after some mainstream media coverage post some reviews of the book? Benjiboi 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
OK I withdraw the request to restore the article, but the admin must really read the rule book. He violated the rule. Period. He is an admin. Supposed to work by the book. Otherwise there is a suspicion in the growth of over-confidence. Mukadderat 04:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place to raise such matters. I would say, however, that it is overwhelmingly likely that even if the article was restored as an improper speedy deletion, it would be deleted if listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Stormie 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote before, this is the issue not of restoring, but enforcing admins to follow the policies. With power comes rsponsibility. I don't see that the admin admitted that he does not know rules well. Mukadderat 04:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with deletion

I have 2 problems with deletions:

1. Often they appear very hasty and arbitrary: I have had an admittedly very brief article about a world-class academic deleted within ten seconds of my putting it up.

2. Once they have been deleted, it is difficult to get them reinstated or even to find the original copy. This can be v. frustrating esp. to new users. Also, I want now to start a new article (on 'xtimeline' as it happens). I find that there has been one before. I'd like to incorporate this into what I do now .... Where can I find it?

Johnbibby 10:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm frustrated too ... It happened to me many times that I completely lose the content of a whole article because I forgot I had to save it somewhere else everytime I hit the wikipedia save button. It is also very frustrating to see a 4 line licence decription on a picture being completely lost whitin 5 sec because of someone (I believe robot) got trigered.

Why is there so many confusing option to upload image that lead nowhere !!! but instant deletion !!! I decided my selfmade image would be used for non-commercial use and educative purposes,,, It's up to you,,, bye wiki... YOUR BLOATED ... Those are my today'$ donation$.

--Transisto (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need deletion notification?

Currently, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states:

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.

If this should be changed or deleted is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Deletion request notification. — Sebastian 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make the content of deleted pages accessible

I want to revive an old discussion Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_22#Why_make_deleted_pages_invisible.3F. I think it should be

possible somehow to see the content of a deleted page.
I agree that deleted pages

  • should not have the glory of being on the wiki and
  • should not show up on internet searches.

However, I think users should have access to the content, so they

  • can see any potentially valuable information,
  • can judge and understand the reasons of the deletion and
  • avoid the mistake of posting a similar article, in the case they are re-creating it.

The best way, I think, is to find a technical way how to satisfy all arguments above. Just a first idea, to have a interface which will email the content of the article at the users's request.

Turingsk 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No. There is a good reason we deleted the article, and that should be noted in the deletion log or (in the case of an AfD) extensively in the deletion discussion, which should be linked from the deletion log. We should not email or otherwise deliver such content to users as a general rule, for GFDL reasons, and because the deleted articles often are copyright violations, attack pages, BLP violations, ... We should not distribute such content for any reason and in any way. There can be exceptions, but the general rule should stay that deleted content is not made accessible to users by Wikipedia (it may be accessible to Google cache, mirrors, ..., but that is not our responsibility any longer). Fram 11:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this argument, I did not realize the copyright issue. I agree this is a problem. However, I somehow feel that one of the free licenses' goal is to save the work, so no one has to do what already has been done. (You can see an example of people asking for the old content even on this page Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Problems_with_deletion). This of course does not apply to copyrighted contents.
I don't agree that we should not distribute attack pages and BLP violations. There is a way how to notify the receiver that the content is not considered verifiable, good, etc. I can imagine even the attacked person wondering "What kind of attacks are against me on Wikipedia?"
I think only the copyrighted contents should be removed and a reference to the source should be kept there. Turingsk 12:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If a user has a good-faith reason for wanting something back (perhaps in order to take it to some other project or GFDL-compliant destination), he/she can request it at one of the Deletion review subpages. Those requests are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and allow the opportunity to properly balance all the competing interests mentioned above. I think that's a far better approach than the broad-brush "expose everything" proposal. Give DRV a try and see if it meets your needs. But if you really want to collect those attack and BLP-violation pages, you're going to have an uphill battle. The community is strongly opposed to perpetuating those privacy violations. Rossami (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I and many other admins will also email copies to anyone wanting them in good faith. I have been known to ask first for a promise they will not be reinserted in WP without consensus. I can see good reasons for wanting some of the material, but some really does need to be kept hidden. DGG (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users

Is it possible to delete users? IE vandals or inactive users? Hackboy1 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, users can be blocked though. Oysterguitarist 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explicating rationales when closing AfDs

I've noticed that a lot of AfD discussions (maybe most) are closed with the following comment: "The result was keep/delete," and nothing more. Those who participate in AfD discussions are asked to provide reasons for their recommendations. Shouldn't it also be standard practice for closing admins to report what the rationale for deleting or keeping an article was? If deciding whether to delete or keep an article were a simple matter of tallying keep and delete recommendations, a simple "The result was..." would be fine, but AfDs are supposed to be discussions, not votes, where arguments and policy count for more than numbers supporting or opposing a particular action. Stating the rationale(s) for deletion when closing an AfD is more consistent with the idea that it is a discussion rather than a vote; it can help editors better understand AfD precedents; and it can help editors understand whether a deleted article may or may not be re-created, and what issues must be addressed in order to avoid another deletion in case it is re-created. The alternative to this seems to me little better than a simple "Keep/Delete. ~~~~" from AfD participants. I realize admins have many responsibilities, and there may be AfD backlogs, but if admins are already taking the time to read and evaluate the arguments made in these discussions, typing a sentence in explanation of the decision adds a relatively neglible amount of time to the process. Nick Graves 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For difficult or ambiguous discussions, that is the norm. In fact, I've seen some closing statements that ran for paragraphs as the closing admin laid out all of his/her reasoning during the close. But that's overkill for most discussions. Remember that in the ideal situation, the sole role of the closing admin is to determine if the community has reached rough consensus on the issue, not to decide the issue itself. When both the weight of argument and the weight of numbers are in agreement and when consensus is clear to any reasonable reader of the discussion, there is often nothing that the closing admin could add that would make the decision any clearer. Why clutter up the page and create an opportunity for misunderstanding? Save the long rationales for those situations where the consensus is not quite so clear. (That said, if you see a closure that you think was not so obvious, it's entirely reasonable to ask the closing admin to return to the page to more thoroughly explain his/her reasoning.) Rossami (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy blanking

There is an inconsistency in the fact that we still do this despite the fact that AFD and RFAR are excluded in robots.txt - The risk of the page becoming the top hit in google was the only reason given for doing this, and that is no longer the case. If we continue doing this, these areas should be removed from robots.txt so that legitimate searches can include non-courtesy-blanked pages. —Random832 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all search engines comply with robots.txt. And, many pages were indexed prior to the exclusion. If a page merits/merited courtesy blanking, it still does regardless of the robots.txt exclusion. GRBerry 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Do any pages that do _not_ merit courtesy blanking have a legitimate reason to be excluded via robots.txt, then? It seems like we have, right now, two solutions to the same problem, each with their own negative side effects, and with no apparent benefit to using both. —Random832 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. We exist to service those seeking knowledge on a subject. Deletion discussions don't help those seeking knowledge of a subject. We provide a better service by keeping (as best we can) all deletion discussions out of search engine results, so that they can find relevant knowledge, whether or not it is on Wikipedia. GRBerry 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, anyone curious why something is not in WP, will still be able to come here and search for it. I have never understood why anything other than the actual articles was searchable by outside search engines. DGG (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

Yes, this edit is a "change to the meaning of the clause." But it's not a major change. And it's also an improvement to newly inserted language, no reason to revert straight away. Anyway, let's discuss.

In my opinion the current (disputed) policy language (requiring an article "about" a term) is needlessly restrictive. Even the WP:NEO guideline is less restrictive ("such as ..."). For example, the article Dialogues on Bakhtin: Interdisciplinary Readings is not about the term logosphere. The current language says it can't be used because it contains only one paragraph about the meaning of "logosphere". Replacing "...about" with "described in..." solves that problem in a way similar to the "hoax" clause. The current language is also awkward, and longer than necessary. Avb 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion should be a last resort

...because some of the reasons for deletion are fixable. I personally do not like admins who speedy delete pages on "lack of sources" or "redirect to nonexisitent page" because it looks like "delete first and fix later" to me. If it can be fixed, then fix it.

In short, some editors are too trigger happy with the delete button. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles should not be speedy deleted merely for lacking sources ... can you point out an instance where this happened? As for redirects to nonexistent pages ... if another target exists, the redirect can be retargeted; if not, there really is no reason to keep it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Right — if a redirect is mistargeted, it shouldn't be any harder to recreate it than to retarget it. (Well, unless the redirect is categorized, but categorized redirects are unorthodox and generally unnecessary.) — xDanielx T/C\R 10:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb question

How does one find pages that have been deleted? I assume that Wikipedia stores these deleted versions, their talk pages, and deletion discussions somewhere. How does one find them? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Administrators can recover them. Other users, by design, can not. If there is a particular page that you would like to see, go to the Deletion review page. There you can request a temporary undeletion (for example, to conduct a transwiki to a sister project where the content might be better suited) or to recover the content for your personal use. Content with a copyright violation or other serious policy violation won't generally be restored but good faith requests will usually be granted fairly quickly. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, you also asked about the deletion discussions. Remember that if a page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, it does not require discussion. But if a discussion was opened, it will usually be at a page titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName. You can sometimes find it through the search engine. Rossami (talk)
  • Like Rossami said, you can post at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_review if you want to view some deleted content. You can also just message/email the deleting admin and ask them to send you the raw contents, or ask any admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. However you decide to request the contents of a deleted page, good faith requests are generally granted, with few exceptions. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I looked, and there doesn't appear to be a deletion discussion about this particular subject. (Computer scientist Ronald Fagin)
I don't want to start a whole thread here, but I think editors should be able to access these old versions. Here's what I happened. I searched for a subject. It wasn't here. I went outside Wikipedia to find out what I needed to know. I came back to Wikipedia, and there was the button "create this page." I thought, why not, I'll create a stub with what I've learned, so the next time someone looks for it, it's here. I see that the page has been deleted in the past. I want to know why, since if:
  1. If the thing I'm searching for isn't considered notable, I should forget about it.
  2. If the thing I'm searching for has the same name, but is different, and is notable, I should make my stub.
  3. If the thing I'm searching for is deemed notable, but the article was deleted for some other reason than notability, I should make my stub.
You see the problem? An editor should be able to easily access the old article and talk page, so he can make these kind of judgements. I hate to bother an administrator about something so trivial. As it is, in the interest of congeniality, I'm going to forget about it. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You misremember what article you are thinking of. The one you link too was deleted 2.5 years ago. Revision 1 had one word, revision 2 had that word and a deletion tag. GRBerry 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's the subject. So I should make my stub? Because there never really was an article on Ronald Fagin? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure! And don't hesitate to contact admins with inquiries about deleted versions of pages, especially if you're thinking about creating an article. While the reason for deletion is generally given in the deletion summary, you should feel free to ask for additional clarification. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There have been proposals for deletion systems that would basically involve simply blanking a page and thus allowing any editor to view the history (see for example Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system). Ultimately, however, there must be a system by which at least some articles can be deleted and not publically accessible - copyright violations, for instance, if we allowed anyone to view a deleted copyvio article we would effectively be illegally distributing the copyrighted material. Anyway I'm always happy to help with queries regarding deleted articles. --Stormie (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of talk pages

As I was reading through the deletion policy, I didn't see info about deletion of article talk pages. When an article is deleted, is the talk page of that article also deleted (assuming there has been discussion on the talk page)? I can see that in some cases, you'd keep the talk page in the event that the article comes up again and is legitimately valid later as an article. However, I can also see that nonsense articles (e.g an article of Nvenaidifasveni) with discussion can have their talk pages deleted. 71.243.218.126 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are (unfortunately) many, many pages covering aspects of the inclusion/deletion policy. Talk pages are routinely deleted at the same time unless there is a compelling reason not to. An example of a reason to keep would be on old page holding the deletion discussion. (We used to archive the deletion discussions on the article's Talk page.) That happens so rarely now that it's a speedy-deletion criterion (G-8) to automatically remove the Talk page of a deleted page unless there is a an obvious useful purpose to the page. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My view is that if there has been extensive and useful discussion of sources and other matters, without any BLP concerns, then talk pages should be archived somewhere. A good rule of thumb is that if there has been enough discussion to have the talk page archived, then deletion should not be automatic. Sometimes, the main page can be recreated as a redirect, and a link to the talk page of the redirect can be left on the talk page of the destination. I do hope people don't blindly delete talk pages of redirects... Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing a merger

In many AfDs the outcome is a merger of the nominated article with some other article. Does undoing that merger and recreating the article require WP:DRV? I can't find any mention of that situation in the this policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no. Merging is an editorial decision. It can be suggested at AfD, but it is carried out as an editorial process, not an administrative process. Blanking and redirecting is different, but genuine merging can be done and undone (following discussion) without recourse to DRV. To undo a merger that had consensus though, you should say what has changed (eg. increased notability, parent article is now too long, so a split per WP:SUMMARY is needed). This is similar to how requested moves works. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the helpful reply. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SNOW name change

I've opened up a discussion discussing a change to the name and wording of WP:SNOW on its talk page. The discussion is found here. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoidance of AfD through redirect, proposed for efficiency.

I noticed a current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the Philippines Astronomical Society. In spite of the title, this is actually an AfD for six allegedly non-notable clubs at the University of the Philippines, Dilman campus. No participant actually familiar with these clubs, and both willing and able to search Tagalog or other non-English sources for notability proof has shown up, and the season may mean that those who might otherwise do this do not have computer access.

At least some of the club articles have been edited by multiple editors. Deletion not only requires admin attention both to the AfD and to the delete process if Delete is the result, but also one of two additional problems: later admin attention to requests for the deleted articles, or, alternatively, users mystified at the disappearance of the article they were sure was there, when they return and notice it, which could take months.

Notability standards are often not clear in application, and I suspect that the only reason that there is not more difficult debate over notability is that the vast majority of editors don't notice the AfDs during the period before the notice is up. I've seen this with voting methods deletions; many of those articles were created by experts who have lives outside of Wikipedia, they may not even check watchlists at all, some of them, or others do use watchlists but may not log in frequently enough.

I'm proposing that the procedure of redirecting allegedly non-notable articles is far more efficient. In this case, the six club articles could be redirected to a master article for clubs on that campus, it already exists. The nominators for deletion could have done this with far less time than it took to set up an AfD. Indeed, I would simply have done it myself if not for the pending AfD, which asks that the article not be blanked (though a blanked article could be accessed from an AfD discussion by a link to history). With truly non-notable articles, in the vast majority of cases, the process would be *done*. Only if someone notices the deletion (and I'd put a notice on the Talk page of the redirection target), and objects, perhaps undoing it, does even discussion need to take place, and it becomes an editorial issue, which can often be resolved between two or a very few editors, without the Sword of Damocles of Deletion hanging over them. If, then, some party considers an AfD to be necessary, it can take place, and there will be more fair representation of all sides in it.

As Wikipedia increases in size, debates over notability, we can predict, will continue to increase. This would be a way to reduce administrator attention necessary to deal with deletions; so much so, that I'd want, were I an admninistrator, to see that redirection was tried first before I would even consider allowing an AfD. I've seen some suggest this in AfDs, with "non-admin closure" of the AfD when no objection appeared. We *must* find ways to reduce argument over AfDs, and this would be one. The other is what User:DGG has called a "clear bright line" for what is notable and what is not. I wish him luck. I don't think it is possible in a finite amount of time, notability is not a fixed quality of topics, it is actually a relationship between people and facts, and, just, as for individuals, notability shifts from time to time, so it is for societies, and each subculture has its own de facto notability standards. Which one or which set should dominate on Wikipedia and how do we figure it out?

The use of redirection is not appropriate for frivolous articles where there is no possible doubt regarding notability, nor, obviously, for articles with offensive or illegal content. These, indeed, probably don't require AfD either, PROD is sufficient, or direct admin action. Articles in the notability grey zone that are redirected might be deleted later, though I question whether or not it is worth the effort.

So, I'd like to see some discussion of this here, and, if some consensus appears, an addition of redirection to the policy as a recommended alternative to AfD, reserving AfD process for actual contention. (Redirection is already mentioned, but not in relation to AfD, I think.) The AfD I mentioned above, quite possibly, would have required no debate at all, especially if it were based on some clear guideline, and AfDs do *not* establish guidelines, they don't establish precedent at all, each AfD is unique. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people agree with you. That's why there is already a section on the page titled Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion which specifically addresses merging. There are a couple of very good essay pages that expand on your point. You can find some of it at meta:Association of Mergist Wikipedians. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of new articles

Okay, is it just me, or should there be some sort of grace period for newly created articles before they can be nominated for deletion? I've seen pages nominated for deletion within an hour of the page first being posted, often for reasons involving the article not being complete enough. I feel that in these situations it is infinitely more productive to put a stub tag on the article, rather than simply deciding that the only pages allowed are ones which spring fully formed from the womb. As I understand it, the entire point of wiki magic is that if you simply tag an article as requiring improvement, and let it sit for a day or two, you'll have one of two things on your hands. An article that nobody cares about or a completely valid article of sufficient length and detail. Once you know that nobody cares about an article, I feel that that is the appropriate time to put it up for deletion, and if the article transforms into a better one, then there's no need to bother it further.--72.230.79.43 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why articles for proposed deletion have five days. User:Krator (t c) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before. I agree with you, per WP:IMPERFECT but heh, what do I know. People like to delete things. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be an effort by persons within the community to be self appointed "experts" on Notability. By what criteria are these "Administrators" guided that governs their use of the Speedy Deletion functionality? It seems that there are those users out there who make no attempt at discovery and simply apply Speedy Deletion to articles according to their own fancy and whims. If there is no surefire way of contributing to wikipedia without the necessity of vigorously maintaining articles that one has created, in fear of administrators abuse of power, then this whole "community" based effort is a sham. There should be some mechanism by which newly created articles are giving a de facto grace period by which they have the "necessary" time frame by which they can grow accordingly. Zenasprime (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an easy accusation to make - and it's commonly made (and sometimes justified). Before you lambaste administrators as a whole, you need to spend some time on the New Pages patrol. There is an astonishing amount of deliberate vandalism and utter junk added to Wikipedia that has absolutely nothing to do with our sole mission of writing an encyclopedia. The folks who volunteer for the NewPages patrol do make mistakes but overall they do a remarkable job. They do not, in my experience, make decisions based on fancy or whim but honestly try to apply Wikipedia's established standards as fairly and honestly as they humanly can. And when honest mistakes happen, there are clear processes to correct those mistakes as well. (See WP:DRV for more on that part of the process.)
The idea of a grace period is suggested fairly regularly. Unfortunately, it has been tested and rejected. Given the volume of junk we regularly have to deal with, it did far more harm than good. Rossami (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but every article I have written so far has been deleted more then once and on every occasion the adminstrator made no effor to read or communicate with me regarding the delection except in a copy/paste fashion of someone who has not done any prior research into the articles in question. Perhaps this isn't endemic but there are certainly administrators out there who are abusing their power. Time SHOULD be given to new articles to be fleshed out by the community at large without the necessity of maintaining an omnipresent vigilence over such articles. There needs to be some sort of mediation regarding "trigger happy" administrators who have become numbed by the "volume of junk". Zenasprime (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether due to the malicious attempts at the public to manipulate information or the opressive measures by it's administrators to manage content, it have become obvious to me that this COMMUNITY based effort at an information repository in it current technical state, is a complete and utter failure. At this point, the usefulness of a community based mechanism for presenting information is not existant in this product. As a consequence, I don't see the point in continuing to stand guard over articles that I, as a member of the community, feel justified in contributing to this effort, in order to protect them, not from other community members, but from the sites managers themselves. It's become painfully obvious that this site has become a novelty only by the administrators, for the administrators, rather then it's intended purpose as something managed by the community at large. Unlike other disgruntled users, however, will not delete my profile but instead leave it available to the community in order to make know the issue I percieve as relavent to it's own destruction. How can anyone hope to participate in an affair by amatures if those running the show never let us get up to speed with the content we provide? As a good friend of mine often says "Good luck with that!" Zenasprime (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I second the motion; there are a number of discussions of this issue ongoing around wikipedia, the central focus seems to be on CSD:A7, there are clearly issues which need to be discussed & (hopefully) resolved, & it makes sense to consolidate it all in one place. Lx 121 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Performing due diligence

What is the guideline for due diligence when starting the deletion process? Is the guideline the same for PROD and AFD? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content fork

I added "Content fork" as a reason for deletion. Many articles have been deleted for this reason, but it wasn't in the list, and it's not clear why. Mangojuicetalk 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know we delete POV forks, but content forks (depending on what you consider a content fork) don't seem inherently bad. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi I know IM only new here but since I posted iformation to an article I have been ganged up on by a group who have blocked me for no reason have deleted my userpage and go around undoing any change i make! Can someplease help ? : ( kate 100%freehuman (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for deletion

Hello, are content issues such as WP:PLOT or the like ever a reason for deletion? My understanding was that if the topic is notable, we shouldn't delete an article. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alone, no, someone shouldn't be using just one reason like WP:NOT. Reasonable potential for a given topic or sub-topic to overcome WP:PLOT should be considered. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So can current state be a relevant part of the argument? Hobit (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's rare but yes, there are a few cases where the current state can be relevant. For example, if the current article (and all historical versions) are so bad that they are worthless as a starting point for a new article, there is sometimes a judgment call about whether a redlink would be more likely to attract the attention of a knowledgeable editor who can add the desired content. A bluelink can sometimes discourage new editors from seeing if there is content they could add. On the other hand, sometimes a redlink is intimidating and a brief stub can attract expansion. These scenarios are usually decided on a case-by-case basis.
Another scenario is when an article has been a trivial stub (or a mere dictionary definition) for a very long time. In that case, the community sometimes concludes that the lack of expansion is de facto evidence that the article can never be expanded into a proper encyclopedia article and that the project would be better off without it. Again, it's very much a case-by-case analysis.
The third scenario is when an article with only marginal encyclopedic potential becomes, for whatever reason, a vandal-magnet. Protection is sometimes the right answer but sometimes, the best answer for the project is deletion.
Fourth, if every version in history has unrepairable copyvio problems, it's quite often better to delete and start over regardless of the encyclopedic appropriateness of the topic.
Other scenarios exist and there are counter-examples for every one of them. My point was only to answer your request for a bright-line rule. No such bright line exists. We usually do not delete based on current content but sometimes we do. Rossami (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I was pretty much aware of all of those, but your explanation helped. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biography--Userpage

If I would find a biography like the user page of User:Dark Horse King‎ I would mark it with db-notability and also all the images, but for the userpage I can't find a template to do so. What can be done that such users do not get the standart user in wikipedia.--Stone (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL discussion from CSD Talk

In this discussion we said we were going to bring the GFDL issues here. Sorry for the delay as I guess that was my job, seeing as I suggested it. If you actually took it somewhere else and I wasn't paying attention, please just slap me. There were two questions, I believe, plus a related non-GFDL issue:

  1. User:Ned Scott raised the question of substituted templates and whether deletion of the original creates GFDL issues because that's where the page history is. At least I think that was his concern, he should probably clarify.
  2. I raised the point that general GFDL concerns get tossed about in XfDs from time to time and the broader topic ought to be addressed at the same time.
  3. Related to these but not really a GFDL concern was that page histories are affected all over the place whenever a template is deleted that was transcluded.

--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related deletion discussion

Of deep significance to this policy is a current template deletion discussion, of a template that represents a deletion discussion as a vote between two parties:

--Tony Sidaway 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate discussion

[moved from Categories_for_discussion/Archive_2008

I notice that the word 'debate' is used when closing discussions, it appears in the instructions as well. Is this the appropriate term for the discussions that have taken place? I believe this term could be misleading, perhaps another would help to build consensus and avoid 'polarisation'. cygnis insignis 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I changed the word "debate" to "discussion". This is not dissimilar to when it was agreed that CfD should stand for "Categories for discussion", rather than "Categories for deletion", the latter somewhat indicating a keep/delete "debate", which is really not the case with CfD as much as it is with other XfD pages. - jc37 11:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The word 'debate' also appears in the navigational template, and in the page title Wikipedia:Deletion debates. cygnis insignis 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a thread to discuss renaming Wikipedia:Deletion debates at Wikipedia Talk:Deletion debates#Rename?, as I think it is a good idea (note that the essay already is titled Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article rescue question

A user has been using article rescue arguments to save what looks to me like a walled garden in his user space. No attempts to improve these articles were made after userfication. I'm concerned that this might be a way people have discovered to circumvent this policy. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages. In particular, I think some standard for the amount of time that a deleted page is allowed to sit idly on a user's subpage needs to be established. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Does this poicy cover just the deletion of entire pages from WP, or is it intended also to cover deletion of a part of the content of a page, while the page continues to exist after that partial content deletion? There are several places on this policy page where the wording leaves it unclear which of those two scopes the policy is intended to cover. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Deletion policy only covers the removal of entire pages. Removal of content of a page is part of the normal editing process. The critical distinction has to do with the pagehistory. Removing content from a page does not remove the content from the pagehistory. If some other editor disagrees with the removal, the action can be reverted without need of special rights or admin tools. "Deletion", on the other hand, removes content and history. Deletion can not be reverted without the special "undelete" button.
If there are places where you think the policy is unclear, please fix them. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I took a crack at doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have a question

I created some related pages that I want to nominate for deletion, but I want them to go through the "slow" deletion procedure, as I think they may serve an important role within Wikipedia and I want to gain consensus as to whether or not they should be deleted. Would this be possible, even though I'm the only editor?--Urban Rose 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I've done it on a couple of articles I had second thoughts about, too. (Ultimately, the community decided to improve one and move the other to Wikibooks, but that's beside the point.) Just nominate them using the AfD process. Be sure to carefully explain what you really want in your nomination, though. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionpedia

Is an archive of deleted pages. Someone added an external link to this and someone else removed it. My view is that this link is hepful in understanding this policy and it consequences and so I am reinstating it. It is clearly identified as an external link so there doesn't seem to be any risk of confusion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the web site is not part of the Mediawiki Foundation and that it does not belong on this policy page. We often delete things because they are BLP violation or are otherwise incompatible with our goals. If we choose to not publish something, then I see plenty of reason to not link to it for the same reasons we did not publish it.
Please get consensus for this addition before re-adding it. (1 == 2)Until 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it belongs. their policy is to include only pages deleted for reason other than copyvio or attack. Its maintained manually, not by a bot, and so far they have done fairly well with it. DGG (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
We already link to many sites which do not share our Foundation's goals (in fact pretty much every conceivable external link falls into this category). Of course if the lawyers tell us that there are legal problems with linking to this site, then our hands are tied - but as far as I know, linking to an external website does not make us liable for possible defamations or other illegalities appearing on that site (or maybe it does, if we're aware of them? question for the lawyers there). Otherwise, if no legal barriers, the only question is whether we ought to have external links on policy pages in the same way we do on article pages. I don't see why not - WP is not (supposed to be) censored, and just like external links are placed on articles to help readers, they can just as well be placed on policy pages (or at least on help pages, which could in turn be linked to from policy pages) to help the readers of those pages. I've seen enough references to Uncyclopedia on Wikipedia pages (not sure if that includes policy pages or not), and that must be pretty much comparable to Deletionpedia.
By the way, I also see that Deletionpedia has no Wikipedia article. Do we think it's notable enough to deserve one?--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Their own help pages indicate that it is not maintained manually but that pages are moved over via bot. I am deeply disturbed that such a site even exists and hope that our legal team is already looking into it. The vast majority of pages removed from Wikipedia are deleted for very good reason. We definitely should not be actively linking to that site. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope their legal team is already looking into it. Publishing copyright violations, BLP-slander, and other legally-troubling content is setting themselves up for death by a thousand lawsuits. As for other articles and non-legally-problematic edits, as long as they keep an edit history they should be legally okay. Remember, many articles are deleted from Wikipedia for the very simple reason that they are not encyclopedic. If another web site wants to waste resources hosting such articles that's fine as long as they comply with copyright and other laws.
By the way, as long as they host legally problematic content, "official" Wikipedia pages such as those in Wikipedia: should not link to that site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we check every external site we link to for legally problematic content? When you say "should" (not link to that site), do you mean according to law, or morals, or WP policy?--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, I mean according to avoiding lawsuits. This applies particularly to policy pages but a good trial lawyer could argue that anything with a Wikipedia: prefix is "owned" by WikiPedia rather than the individual editors, as is the case with articles, Talk pages, user pages, and other content pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see the benefit to Wikipedia to link to content that Wikipedia has decided is not compatible with its project. (1 == 2)Until 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the above legal arguments if the law really is like that (which I kind of doubt, but then I know very little about it), but to answer 1==2, the benefit to Wikipedia would be that editors would be helped to find some deleted content quickly without having to bug the admins about it. (I presume you can see why this would be useful to constructive editors in certain situations.) The fact that we've removed content as unencyclopedic doesn't mean it can't be put to any use. In fact the very knowledge that something has already been rejected as unencyclopedic might be helpful, in that you can avoid repeating others' mistakes.--Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, of course, that "it's unencyclopedic" is no where near being the only reason that pages get deleted. There are other, quite valid, reasons for deletion, a few of which, others have noted above. - jc37 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia takes measures to get rid of dangerous pages (i.e. illegal content). There may be a bit of a lag in getting rid of it, but we have a lag here as well sometimes. I think there are legal precedents limiting one's responsibility for hosting content posted by others that was added to one's site through one's automated systems. It's not much different than google caches. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preserving deleted content

I think that Wikipedia ought to have its own version of Deletionpedia. Once deleted, articles can't be read in order to improve them and overcome the objection that led to their deletion. I wouldn't bother with articles deleted for patent nonsense, hate speech, copyright infringement, or subject matter which, for any reason, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But if a good article is deleted because its authors weren't quite able to prove notability, it deserves to rest in some sort of Purgatory until it can be improved enough to deserve to be resubmitted. Unaware of Deletionpedia, I have already volunteered to host such a project within my own userspace (User:DOSGuy#Deletapedia). Some sort of task force or official WikiProject tasked with improving good deleted articles is a really good idea. It's not reasonable to expect an article to be sufficiently improved within the few days that it's up for AfD. I'm quite willing to help. DOSGuy (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Many admins, including me, will undelete and userfy or email the contents of an article deleted for non-notability, provided that there are no reasons the article absolutely should not have this done (copyvio, libel, attack, etc.), if someone has a good-faith belief they can improve the article to encyclopedic standards. I don't see any reason to have all articles in some sort of "purgatory", as most deleted articles are unimprovable ("John Foo is the coolest kid at Somewhere High!!!!", "Bar Corp. is the premiere supplier of widgets in the world. Buy a Bar Corp. widget today at www.example.com!"). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
But how can anyone know if they can improve the article if they can't read the article? I never said that all articles should go to purgatory, and I fully acknowledge that most articles can't be saved. I suggested that good articles that failed notability could be preserved in some way so that a WikiProject group could review them and see if they can be salvaged. DOSGuy (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As noted, most admins are willing to undelete and userfy content, where it can be read, evaluated, and edited by others. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the project in your userspace, I would ask that you request its deletion (using {{db-u1}}). The edit histories of the articles that were copied are not preserved in the userspace versions, so they technically violate the GFDL. As Seraphimblade notes: if you or another editor would like to improve a deleted article, you can ask an administrator to undelete and userfy the contents. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not a lawyer but... userspace is part of the Wikipedia site; how can a site be in violation of a license for its own content???--Kotniski (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's basically for the same reason that copy-paste moves are problematic and generally need to be fixed: "The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and ... it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires." (quoted from Help:Merging and moving pages) The GFDL also requires that others be able to freely copy content from Wikipedia; a loss of edit history on Wikipedia effectively prevents others from copying the content while respecting the copyright of the contributors. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Aren't edit histories lost whenever an article is merged into another article? Wikipedia must be full of GFDL violations by now. DOSGuy (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge with redirect keeps it around, but it still might not provide for the needed acknowledgment. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The edit history is not lost so long as the merged article is redirected (and, technically, the title of the article being merged should be indicated in the edit summary of the edit in which the merge is performed). Black Falcon (Talk) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Similarly, the edit histories of the articles in my userspace are still available to anyone who has the rights to view the deleted page. There's certainly no effort on my part to deny attribution to the contributors. Anyone interested in the edit history could contact an admin. I'm trying to do something helpful, and I don't think either the spirit or even the letter of the law has been broken. DOSGuy (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While the edit histories are available to those who can view deleted revisions: (1) I don't believe that's enough for GFDL (someone who copies Wikipedia's content will not have access, and thus will not be able to provide, the contributions history), (2) deleted revisions can be lost after a while. If you'd like to host the content in your userspace so that it can be improved, I'll undelete and userfy the articles (with full edit history). Black Falcon (Talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I thank you. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but perhaps we can discuss it on my Talk page. If I can count on the support of people like you for future articles that may be brought to my attention, I think this unofficial Deletapedia WikiProject could really work. I'm happy to see support for a grassroots movement that feels desperately needed at this time. I see people forever complaining about deleted articles, but no official support for a rehabilitation project for good articles that get deleted. Perhaps this idea will draw in the disillusioned and disenfranchised editors who are upset with Wikipedia's current deletion policy. DOSGuy (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how "userfying" deleted articles is any different from simply making them generally available in the same place where administrators view them now. Those which ought to be hidden for legal or moral reasons (in contrast to articles deleted on the grounds of non-notability or nonsense) can be referred to oversight, as I continue to believe happens at the moment (since no-one more knowledgeable has denied it in earlier discussions). At least, this could be tried as an experiment. If it turns out to cause a significant increase in rubbish article creation, we could always switch straight back.--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oversight is something only the devs can do; it is not really viable as a mechanism for removing copyright or BLP violations since it would consume virtually all of the their time. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, what is its purpose then? My impression was that that was exactly what it was for. In fact a glance at WP:OVERSIGHT would seem to confirm this. (And according to that page, the oversight team is not the same as the DEVs.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was mistaken about the group membership... (It's restoration of oversighted content that is in the hands of the devs.) As for purpose, see Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy. Standard copyright and BLP violations are generally dealt with through standard reversion or deletion; oversight is used only on the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation counsel or when there is a specific request to remove the material by the person affected (the subject of the article or, in the case of private information, an editor). Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess you're right. So we would need some way for admins to make the call when they delete pages. If there are no legal issues and the page isn't complete nonsense, is there a fast and easy way for a deleting admin to preserve the content and history of the deleted page for general viewing? (I've seen it done in deletion log summaries, but I guess that's only practical for pages with very short content.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. From a technical standpoint, any admin can restore and userfy the content and history of a deleted page. From a more practical standpoint, the purpose of deletion is to remove a page from general viewing, and userfication is mostly reserved for cases where an editor expresses a good-faith desire to improve an article so as to address the reasons for its deletion -- consensus is against using userfication as a mechanism for creating archival copies of deleted pages. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, judging by this and the previous lengthy VPP discussion on the same topic, there can hardly be said to be a consensus on this one way or another (or at least, admins have a consensus against while the vulgar masses have a consensus in favour). But anyway, things being as they are, I'm going to try to write a guideline or something (or maybe just a section on the Deletion policy page) to deal with methods of "retrieving deleted content". Unless someone with more experience would like to do it instead. --Kotniski (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that all of the dozens of proposals to overhaul the current system have failed is an indication of, at least, a lack of consensus for a change. That said, I don't think the disagreement is between admins and non-admins (for instance, my opinion on the issue has not changed over time...) so much as between editors who hold different viewpoints about standards for inclusion, the effectiveness of the current system, and the need for a major change. On the point of retrieving deleted content, the "Deletion review" section of this policy presents a fairly general overview, though perhaps it doesn't give adequate attention to the possibility of undeletion without a formal DRV. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps those proposals were more complicated than they needed to be, or the discussions suffered from bad faith. The fact that proposals have failed in the past doesn't mean that a solution can't be found! To me, it doesn't seem complicated. Let's use the example of a BLP. An article is created about a minor celebrity, and someone feels that it fails to assert notability and proposes AfD. People who have heard of the person oppose, while people who haven't heard of the person support. Support gets a few more votes than Oppose, whose advocates fail to improve the article in time to save it. A well-written, well-researched article is lost. Anyone who opposed to deletion could ask an Admin to userfy the article, but they weren't able to sufficiently improve the article before, and they still won't be able to now. However, if a group of experienced editors who were part of an Undeletion WikiProject were to have access to the article, the article could be saved. Hurray! Except that no such thing exists. :(
Admins are asked to use their own discretion in deciding the outcome of an AfD, are they not? Then perhaps they can also be given the discretion to determine if the Oppose side has made a strong enough case for this person's celebrity and notability that the article could be improved enough to survive, if only someone could, for instance, replace the primary sources with secondary sources, and make it available to the Undeletion WikiProject. Alternatively, members of the WikiProject could ask that the article be available to them if the article is deleted. They could keep an eye on the AfD pages and watch for good articles that have been proposed for deletion. One way or another, the point is to have a central place for salvageable articles to go when they die, so that a broad group of people, composed of both Admins and regular editors, would have an opportunity to salvage them. DOSGuy (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations

The section Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations shows how to mark an article as a copyvio. If you go to the copyvio template page, it states that the template must be subst'ed. The text at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations doesn't reflect this. I figure this is a minor and easy fix, but I thought I'd play it safe and still discuss it on here.--Rockfang (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change [2].--Rockfang (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] change to make use of rough consensus clearer

from: "(...) if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept (...)"

to: "(...) if there is rough consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept (...)"

Rationale: people don't read the rough consensus article, and make wrong assumptions about what sort of consensus is needed for keeping the article, and they use WP:CONSENSUS instead.

Consequences: This misunderstanding somehow makes people reach the wrong conclusion that compliance of wikipedia policies is not important as soon as everyone agrees (head count). That means that they complain about admins when they delete articles because of not compliance of policies even if the head count says "keep", and then go unnecessarily to DRV believing that the admin acted wrong and decision can be overturned on technical grounds (it can't, if you actually read deletion policy carefully). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ad contents in wikipedia

I noticed that there are some advertising articles in wikipedia. Is it legitimate that every small company or website make there own article and then puts it into disambiguation page for some popular acronym? I think that these pages are intended only for really relevant topics. So if it's not, what's the best way to delete them? 77.126.197.202 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See the WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AfD deletion how-tos. In general, a well-written, well-sourced article about a small company will have to go to AfD, unless you get lucky and nobody notices a PROD for the required 5 days. A word of caution though: If the company is even marginally WP:NOTABLE, it will likely survive AfD if it meets the requirements for an article. If an article is almost entirely lifted from somewhere else such as the company web site, it can be speedy-deleted. If it's original material but sounds like advertising, it might qualify for speedy deletion depending on how blatant it is. Oh, and as for the disambiguation pages: If the acronym is common, then it's fair to put it there. If it's not, then be WP:BOLD and remove it. If they restore it, either discuss it with them, discuss it on the talk page for the disambiguation page, or start a Request for Comments. It would help if you gave a few specific examples. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new section

As suggested in an above discussion, I would like to add a new section to the policy page dealing with access to deleted pages. I propose the following possible wording:

Access to deleted pages
Pages which have been deleted can no longer be generally viewed, but (except in a few special cases) remain in the database and accessible to administrators, along with their edit history. Any user having a genuine reason for seeing a deleted page may ask an administrator to make it temporarily available for viewing; the administrator will do this by copying it into that user's user space. The administrator may refuse to do this if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), if no good reason is given for the request or if there are other reasons to believe that the request is not made in good faith.
Some deleted Wikipedia articles may also be found on outside websites which archive such content.
Note, however, that there is no guarantee that content placed on Wikipedia will remain accessible if deleted. When making substantial contributions, editors are advised to retain a copy on their own computer.

Comments?--Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to interpret silence as approval in this case, and see what happens when I make the addition.--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I should have commented earlier. First, I think it's a bad idea to officially recommend that users "retain a copy on their own computer". This invites the kind of game-playing that gets repeat postings speedy-deleted (under CSD case G4) and gets users blocked for abusive editing. Good content almost never gets deleted. Bad content should get deleted. Users who want to appeal a deletion follow the process at Deletion review (which includes a thorough discussion of how to ask for a temporary undeletion).
Those same misgivings apply to your comment about outside websites. I know they're out there and can't stop them from doing what they do but I don't think it's good for our project to advertise them.
The other problem with your paragraph is that the opening sentence implies that the deleted content stays in the database forever. While that has been the recent case, it has not always been that way and there is no guarantee that it will continue. Our developers reserve the right to prune the deleted history at any time if they need to in order to improve performance, etc.
Lastly, I'm not sure that this is the right page for the comment. It seems less policy-like and more guide-like. Perhaps it would fit better at the Guide to deletion. Rossami (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with the wording after your pruning (I didn't know about the temporary review section; all though the recent long discussions on the subject I don't recall it being mentioned, even though it seems precisely what is needed). I think the comment should remain on this page though (possibly in addition to the "guide" page)- this seems to be a significant part of policy connected with deletion, which readers of this page are likely to want to know about. I also think it would be courteous to inform people that their content might disappear without trace (we want to build a community, not make enemies), but I guess they can actually work that out for themselves without it having to be stated explicitly. --Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Good content" is deleted on an almost daily basis. An enthusiastic editor writes a good article but fails to source it or prove notability, and the article is deleted before the general population has an opportunity to improve it. That's what the debate above is about. A user can only request access to the article if he or she knows that the article exists and has reason to believe that they can improve it. It would nice if there was a Task Force or WikiProject for articles that almost survived AfD, and have a strong likelihood of being improvable, so that they can be reviewed by a larger audience who might have the knowledge and skill to improve them. That's a different debate, and I won't bring it here. I object to this proposal because it doesn't address the need to make salvageable deleted articles available to a large enough audience to allow them to be salvaged, and may do more harm than good if it leads the powers that be to conclude that it resolves the problem. DOSGuy (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the situation could be improved. This addition to the policy was intended only to say explicitly what current practice is, since previously this important issue wasn't addressed on this policy page at all. My view is that most (i.e. non-defamatory and not total nonsense) articles which get deleted should be left on general display somewhere, but all proposals along those lines are consistently rejected by those of an administrative persuasion (like in the earlier discussions on this page). I forget the Reason, but it's assuredly very good;) --Kotniski (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversing the AFD default for BLPs

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to reverse the AFD default for biographies of living persons, so that a "no consensus" at AfD outcome would result in deletion of the article. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion remains ongoing. There are also alternative proposals (elsewhere on the same page) which would use semi-protection as a tool instead of deletion in such cases.--Kotniski (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Head count

I have just changed the wording of the Deletion discussion section so that it now describes the actual decision method, based on discussion with Skomorokh here User talk:Skomorokh#Jehovah AfD. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your change was incorrect. As has been said often and in many places throughout Wikipedia, deletion discussion have nothing to do with counting noses. Decisions are made by assessing consensus. Opinions offered are weighted based on their strength of argument and connection to established facts and policy (and to some degree by the reputation and demonstrated understanding of that policy by the contributor). Anyone who thinks we are voting needs to reread the policy. Rossami (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on my personal observation, in practice AfD decisions are made by simple head count. Also, based on personal observation, I have seen that it is difficult to get the administrators of any organization to admit that their practice diverges from their policy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That isn't practise, though. AFD is not a vote - the closing admins look at the arguments presented, who has convinced who, and try to determine whether a consensus has been reached. If it were a straight head count, we wouldn't get "no consensus" results and we wouldn't get AFDs relisted. Consensus is often the opinion of the most editors, but not always: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because you've not seen outcomes where consensus diverges from majority, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Percy, your reply is clearly the Wikipedia 'party line'. But it simply does not describe reality. I had hoped that, at minimum, it would be possible to get a concession that there is a problem....but, judging by replies so far, even that very limited expectation is expecting too much. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've participated in plenty of AfDs where the eventual conclusion was in favour of a minority view; these get DRVed fairly often, and usually DRV upholds them. SamBC(talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. I've seen exactly the same. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, I suppose, nice to know how happy all of you are with how well the Wikipedia AfD process is working. Nonetheless, I find it troubling that, instead of questions to see if some things might be improvable, there has only been denial of any problem at all. I will leave it at that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Speedy-keep mechanism for bad content/notability articles that lack requests for improvement

I posted this in WT:AFD at this section so the specifics are there, but I am proposing that we considering adding that proposed deletion of articles that are claimed to fail content or notability related guidelines (such as NOT and NOTE respectively) should have a mechanism to speedy-keep the article if there is a lack of notification on the article (Via cleanup tags) or the article's talk page (discussion) that the article is failing in these areas, though this speedy-keep should be considered as such a notification such that if no improvements or good faith efforts are made in a reasonable amount of time afterwards (2 weeks to a month), the proposed deletion can be restarted. This is basically due to issues raised at WT:NOT over WP:PLOT that the way NOT and other guidelines are being used now basically only give editors 5 days to fix the article if the deletion proposal is the "first notice". Adding language to the approach that other steps before deletion should be done before deletion, specifically codifying it here or in AFD or elsewhere, may help cool off the struggle between inclusionists and deletionists. I note that we still should deal with patent nonsense and more egregious violations of things like BLP in the current matter --MASEM 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allow (some) soft redirects to Wiktionary

There is a guideline WP:Soft redirect, that offers an alternative to AfD for "articles that can never expand beyond dictionary definitions" (or "dictdefs"). However, this policy does not mention such possibility in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Currently it says "transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete from here" (or "move to Wiktionary" in other words). Same for all the sister projects. I think that this policy should be changed to allow a de facto standard practice of turning the more troublesome dictdefs into soft redirects, such as {{wi}}. I found an old discussion about it has been archived here, without any further action. I would say it was a consensus. (There was a shortpages problem mentioned there, but it has been solved.) --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy already allows those soft-redirects. If you think the current wording is unclear, be bold and fix it. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No it does not:

They may be transwikied there before their deletion is decided. Articles that can never be other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") and are not merged as described above, should be deleted after they are copied to Wiktionary.

I suspect there will be some objectons, so I am not bold - this is a policy after all. --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Once a dictionary definition is transwikied, there's no reason to keep the history for the page. Deletion of the page itself shouldn't be an issue, but policy doesn't prohibit recreating the article with {{wi}}, as I read it. There are currently 429 uses of {{wi}} in mainspace anyway. An article that can't be more than a dicdef should be deleted, but a soft redirect isn't more or less than a dicdef – it's a different creature entirely, a non-article. GracenotesT § 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so now policy allows "transwiki, delete, {{wi}}". The problem is that usually "wi" part will get forgotten (is it somewhere in AfD process?), leading to constant re-creation of dictdefs. My proposition is to allow "transwiki, {{wi}}" sequence in some cases. I think we may survive with some "unnecessary" edit histories. --Kubanczyk (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Policy has always allowed transwiki followed by {{wi}}. You just wouldn't see it on this page (or in the AFD process) because nothing's been deleted. The deletion policy doesn't apply in the scenario you're discussing. The policy that you quoted above only applies if some user thinks that deletion may be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Seems like no one is objecting. I'll be bold on Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How Long is Appropriate for a Renomination?

The policy says the following regarding renominations for deletion: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."

I want to nominate a page for deletion that was last nominated by someone else two and a half years ago. At the time, it received "no consensus" as the result, but since then, hardly anything has changed for the article, the information on there seems less relevant than it ever was and does not seem like appropriate content for Wikipedia, in my opinion. It seems like a vanity page. I have left a number of comments in the Discussion page for the article advocating for deletion, to which no one has made any follow up reply comments. However, I don't want to be considered "disruptive," so I'd like to know if two and a half years is "a reasonable amount of time" for opting to renominate it for deletion. Webmacster87 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

after a non-consensus, 2 years i certainly enough. I'd say even more strongly: Unless it's apparent that a non-consensus close would now result in a keep, it's not a bad idea to renominate it after even a month or two. We want to establish consensus one way or another. Even after a keep, if anyone finds a 2 year old keep that they think might now fail, it's right to nominate it. (In fact, shorter periods are also quite acceptable--my personal guideline is 4 to 6 months after a single keep, 1 to 2 months after a non-consensus.) DGG (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Two years is certainly enough. But I don't think we want to establish consensus; it's costly in man-hours and project dissension to AfD something, and if we don't think there's going to be a new result, there's no point in AfDing something. If it's had two AfDs, even no consensus ones, let it alone for at least a year, and hopefully more. I wouldn't bring up a non-consensus after 1 to 2 months unless I thought I had something really new to bring up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
after two consecutive keep AfDs I too would wait at least a year, and after three I think it should need prior consensus at Deletion Review or elsewhere even to consider it. Personally, I think every reasonable effort should be made to determine consensus. DGG (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of NYS Route 21A

Why was it deleted when it is just coming out? Why can't I start a discussion??????-? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check77 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 21A Rossami (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image duplicate of one on commons

Image:Benzene resonance.png is a duplicate of an image on commons. I think it should be deleted and its history transposed to commons if necassary, but I'm not sure what policy says about such cases so I'll let you handle this. Shinobu (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)