Talk:Deletion of articles on Wikipedia

Hatnotes for editors, vs external links
I moved the hatnote to Deletion policy to external links. Wikipedia has adopted a few unfortunate penchants, one is the liberal use of hatnotes for nearly anything. A hatnote to Deletion policy is an editor aid, and putting it the article prime real estate is to value the editor over the reader. While editors may be worth more than readers, this should never be the signal on an article header. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep the content based on external sources
I can immediately see that it is a challenge to write the content based on external sources, as opposed to the expert knowledge editors have on the topic. I didn’t get involved in the Truth vs Verifiability battle, but this is a small example of its application. We know the truth about Wikipedia deletion processes, but what is verifiable from third party sources? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I expect that external sources can be found supporting everything in the article. Wikipedia deletion processes are surprisingly well-covered as a subject of study in academic scholarship. BD2412  T 01:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: The book "How Wikipedia Works" has a lengthy section on deletion processes that covers just about everything presently in this draft. Of course, I'd prefer to avoid leaning too hard on any one source, but at least there is one. BD2412  T 05:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - how about now? BD2412  T 21:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As always, I am impressed by your work. You have found quality external sources. Pushing Devil’s advocate … are these quality external sources independent, or authored by Wikipedians with expertise on the deletion process?  Deletion of articles on Wikipedia reads like an insider’s guide, and I am wondering about “public attention” on the process as a whole, and especially about public misconceptions, which would be things written by non-wikipedians.  In non-quality sources, I can find misguided statements about deletion on Wikipedia, although these are even more surely written by Wikipedians, unhappy Wikipedians.  Deletion of articles on Wikipedia is a very nice collection of the notable controversies, strictly from the external perspective. I find it very interesting reading for me.  I recall when Mzoli%27s was happening, and got involved in the DRV end of others. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the publishers to the books to clarify that publication is independent of Wikimedia. I don't know if it matters whether the individual authors are. The information is not in question. BD2412  T 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it is a problem if the individual authors happen to also be Wikipedians, as long as they are publishing independently of Wikipedia/WikiMedia for a general audience. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

enwiki only
The content seems to deal with enwiki, and not with Wikipedia globally. While other languages generally have speedy deletion and AfD, only a few have DRV for example. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the addition of content about other-language wikis. The sources I have found tend to focus on English Wikipedia, but they are English-language sources. BD2412  T 01:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

17 October
Copyediting the first paragraph, resectioning, adding notable deletions... all of these are mere suggestions. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we're nearly there. BD2412  T 16:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RevDel
Should we have the RevDel section? It seems a bit out of scope for the article title. I suppose that's also true of the brief mentions of other XfD procedures, but those are at least analagous to the AfD process, with RevDel being something categorically different. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that there are different mechanisms for deletion of content outside of deletion of the entire article. It should probably be mentioned that the most straightforward form of content deletion is when any editor edits a page and removes content from it. BD2412  T 20:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. If we're broadening the subsection a bit, it might make more sense in a different location. Right now, its position between AfD and DRV is a bit awkward. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a "disambiguating" section talking about various meanings of the term deletion in the context of Wikipedia; such deletion that you describe is commonly called "removal". Source needed for this tho. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is an adequate fix (diff)? — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. BD2412  T 21:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Scope of article
- I guess the question is what the scope of this article is. For me, the Pierre Sur Haute affair would be like linking an excerpt from Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the article Health effects of tea. Yes, if you drink poisoned tea you might die or get sick, but that's not really the subject of the article - it's about normal tea drinking. Besides, this deletion lasted like one hour. It had absolutely nothing to do with AFD discussions or Wikipedia policies or PRODs (aka what is discussed earlier in the article). Someone reading this article is interested in the community process for deletion of Wikipedia articles, in my opinion, not external actors who somehow delete an article akin to the poison in the tea. Attempting to cover strictly "was the deletion button pressed" is the wrong focus IMO - something like a radioactively controversial AFD with coverage in reliable sources that was ultimately closed as "keep" might well be in scope for this article, while an administrator account getting hijacked and deleting a page briefly is really the topic of Vandalism on Wikipedia, and the Pierre Sur Haute incident is really part of Censorship of Wikipedia. This article should be on the topic of Deletion of articles on Wikipedia by Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia community discussions for a specific scope of coverage. (I am kidding with the title.)

On similar grounds, I'd argue that the "Wikipedia art" excerpt is shaky as well. It's at least more related to the topic but I wouldn't be sorry to see it replaced with something more relevant. On the other hand, the Clarice Phelps incident is exactly on point - a deletion discussion deleted the article, there was coverage of it, the article stayed deleted for more than a year, it led to both debate on the guidelines as well as additional third-party coverage. SnowFire (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The example serves to illustrate what deletion of articles on Wikipedia is and what it isn't. Deletion of articles on Wikipedia is only that, when it is done by members of the community according to Wikipedia's conventions, to futher Wikipedia's aims. When something is merely deleted in a technical sense but does not come from the community and is counter to the aims of Wikipedia, it is not "Deletion of articles on Wikipedia" but something more like "Outide entities damaging Wikipedia"; technically it's still deletion, but deletion on Wikipedia is not just merely pressing a button in MediaWiki, it's a set of processess. So this is more like Agaricus bisporus, an edible basidiomycete mushroom including information on the deadly poisonous destroying angel (Amanita sp.) To understand what the edible mushroom is, we also talk about what it is not. The community reacted to the outside disruption by restoring the article. The fact that deleted articles are not permanently lost and can be restored is given quite a bit of prominence in the article. The article seems to have been undeleted which is a core aspect of deletion processes as a whole. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We could add a line about how sometimes editors (usually IPs) come along and blank the page, and this gets swiftly reverted. BD2412  T 21:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, but if this article's scope is going to include out-of-process deletions, I included it in the "main" list of types, as well as an example of what BD2412 described of random vandals blanking pages. Also moved the Pierre Sur Haute example to the new section and chopped it down, don't think we need as many details as the original excerpt had. I will say that the "office actions" bit sourcing isn't great at the moment, just a primary source link, but office actions that aren't Framgate don't tend to get much news media coverage. SnowFire (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Local discussion
I identify three issues stated in the review: citation needed in specific paragraph, parameter order for author names in cite templates, factual error about who closes deletion discussions. The latter two are now resolved (diff, diff) so there's only the first thing left, and I suppose that solving it would lead to acceptance. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers! BD2412  T 22:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it "Images for discussion" or "Files for discussion"?
Hey, it looks like the prefix "Image" is deprecated, should we change from "Images for discussion" to "Files for discussion", or keep it this way? Sheep8144402 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this really notable enough?
Let me give two examples. There's an endless controversy about YouTube and how it deals with copyright. Also, there's been a lot of high profile bans on Twitch. Yet, these services don't get these specific articles on these controversial topics. It just seems like a lot of the information could be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. I generally think these articles about Wikipedia itself should be pruned (First Wikipedia edit, many other articles on ). It's getting to the point where in the future I wouldn't even be surprised if the history of a specific article is itself the subject of an article. Anyway, that's just my two cents.MarkiPoli (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has over 50 references, including high-level sources such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Wired, The Los Angeles Times, and Le Monde. The subject therefore meets the WP:GNG. BD2412  T 00:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Template:YouTube navbox. There are definitely YouTube daughter articles. They include YouTube suspensions, Censorship of YouTube, Blocking of YouTube videos in Germany, and the YouTube article has a long section about content moderation: YouTube. YouTube doesn't have multiple deletion processes and concepts like notability etc., so there's no "Deletion of YouTube videos" because there isn't that much to talk about in that regard (outside of suspensions and censorship). Then take a look at Template:Meta Platforms for hyperspecific articles about their particular concepts like Activity stream, Social graph, Friending and following, Reblogging, Fan-gating, Facebook diplomacy, Facebook like button... The nature of Wikipedia being an encylopedia everyone can edit, which means that anyone can create articles, evokes the question of "certainly, not everyone can create anything and call it an article", and this is a natural and inescapable question that has attracted research and media coverage. This is Wikipedia's particular concept. This article can't really be much shorter, which would, in the opposite case, justify mering: There are multiple processes that need to be laid out systematically so that the reader could gain some understanding of the topic, and it's necessary to mention notability, deletionism and inclusionism, or the article simply wouldn't be complete. Ultimately, some noteworthy events that serve as a good illustration are due too. However, I've been thinking about merging Notability into this article.—Alalch E. 01:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know those articles existed. Personally, I think if all of those articles exist, there should also be an article on Youtube copyright, as its a perennial issue. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Try writing one I guess. —Alalch E. 07:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed "historian" from Robert Tombs in Mass Killings discussion
Per my edit here: I removed "historian" from in front of Robert Tombs in the discussion of the Mass Killings AfD. I think describing him only as a historian without noting that his speciality is 19th Century France is misleading - but then adding that makes it too wordy, simpler to let readers make their own minds up on his qualifiactions by clicking the link to his article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources/OR
Re: this. @SnowFire.

Footnote 33 links to Articles for deletion/Terry Shannon. Footnote 45 links to Articles for deletion/Kristian Ayre. Footnote 47 links to Wikipedia history of that article. Footnote 53 links to our DelRev discussion. Footnote 56 links to another AfD. That's pure OR.

I think we should either restoe the OR/Primary tags, or removed all content referenced to Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Most of these seemed harmless - there were already secondary sources, so I just rephrased the reference to have the secondary source first, and the primary source as just a side note. The Clarice Phelps bit is an excerpt so see diff there.  The  "mass killings" article seems a valid use of a primary source - I guess it should be formatted with Cite web for better portability, but the outrage mongers who cared about that story had 0 interest in reporting the actual end of it, and the news agencies that saw it as business as usual didn't report on it at all.  So we're stuck with either using primary sources or having an incomplete and misleading story without an ending.  Setting the fact it's about Wikipedia aside, that's a classic case where a mild use of a primary source is handy - it comes up when, say, the lawsuit being filed is in the news, but nobody reports on the lawsuit being quietly settled / dismissed.  No choice but to dab into a primary source confirming that.
 * I didn't fix Kristian Ayre as... that seems to be frankly a very obscure footnote in the history of Wikipedia.  A full paragraph on that may be excessive, but I don't have access to the original Peter David article.  Presumably David acknowledged his "victory" somewhere but I'm not the person to find it, since it sounds like it'd involve digging up dead tree comics media.
 * I did see the occasional primary source before, but personally I'm a fan of applying cleanup banners only when the situation is very bad. Which definitely happens, but wasn't the case here.  SnowFire (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)