User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion is not a substitute for tagging

Deletion is not a substitute for tagging
Occasionally on Wikipedia, a user gets the notion that by deleting an article, s/he will be able to scare similar articles into shaping up. While shooting prisoners to inspire good behavior in the survivors may sometimes work in real life, the practice has been labeled a war crime for good reason. Wikipedia policies call for article improvement rather than deletion in a number of cases. The results of AFDing articles on Wikipedia is also questionable; as many AFDs and PRODs pass with relatively little discussion, AFDing or PRODing an article in order to effect its improvement is at best a chancy proposition.

Deletion is not a substitute for a {cleanup} tag
Rarely, an article may be either so devoid of content or containing so little content of value that it is worthwhile to delete the article in preparation for making a new article on the topic. However, if an article simply requires basic cleanup to remove cruft and conform to the style manual, it is not appropriate to AFD or PROD the article.

Deletion is not a substitute for a {source} tag
To suggest that an article is on a non-notable topic is to assert that no secondary sources exist which are reliable, independent, and discuss the topic in a non-trivial fashion. If you simply see no such sources established in the article, it is appropriate to tag the article as lacking sources. It is inappropriate to put the article up for deletion simply because you see no sources present in the article.

To assert that an article should be deleted on the basis that no secondary sources are available requires you to make the argument that no appropriate sources can be located and that there is no reasonable prospect of locating them. You should have yourself conducted a basic search for such sources and ideally consulted at least one editor who has successfully located sources for articles in a similar subject domain with a view to establishing that not only can you not personally locate relevant sources but that there is no reasonable prospect of someone expert in the area doing so.

Examples of AfD's started as a substitute for a {source} tag

 * Viper Comics was nominated as a non-notable company, lacking non-trivial coverage. In less then a week the coverage came up in overwhelming amounts.
 * While I agree with you on the overall statement that lack of sources should mean look for sources, not delete - and mark as needing sources if you don't have time to look yourself - I think Viper Comics is a poor choice of example. The article still lacks a reference other than Viper Comics' corporate website for its assertion that it was founded in 2001; I was unable to find any evidence of it doing anything at all until 2003 when it published its first product.  The only statements in the article that are supported are the acclaim for Villains and the nominations for best teen graphic novels by the ALA.  Nothing else in the article is properly supported even now.  I would suggest the Michelle Ferguson-Cohen article as an alternative that is a better example of this phenomenon, and has much better sources now, though, the article has its own problem with lack of NPOV writing in it, IMO. Felisse (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Superosity was nominated for having no third party sources, while the article is now flooded with it.
 * this one's a great example. Felisse (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultimate Disney was nominated non-notable, due to a lack of third party coverage, only to be overturned in one comment.
 * this one, not so good. the discussion named sources which the article still lacks.  I just tagged it for sources!  Felisse (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion is not a substitute for a {npov} or {bias} tag
Insuring that articles are written from a neutral point of view is difficult. However, simply because an article has extensive POV problems is no cause for deletion. As with the case of cleanup and copyediting, it is rarely appropriate to delete an article for the bias with which it is written.

To assert that an article should be deleted on the basis of being biased requires that you make the argument that no article on the topic could ever be encyclopedic because no possible article could express the topic of the article within a non-biased manner. For example, a list of reasons to hate Bob would be an article which, by the nature of the subject matter, is inherently biased by its choice of topic. A biography of Bob is not inherently biased and therefore should not be deleted on the basis of POV material - even if anti-Bob partisans have inserted a list of reasons to hate Bob into various places in the biography, a simple {pov} tag leading to the removal of the POV content is in order, not an AFD or PROD.


 * If the subject of a biography is a living person, it is better to have no information than false information, unsourced information, or a slanted and biased article. In that case deleting the whole article, or deleting all portions of it that are not neutrally phrased and supported by verifiable sources, is the best plan. Felisse (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)