User:Cirt/Gutting



Gutting is the removal of a large amount of content from an article. It may stem from constructive or nonconstructive motivations. Sometimes, gutting offending material from an otherwise acceptable article makes such a substantial improvement that the original basis for WP:AFD is removed.

Before Gutting

 * 1) WP:BEFORE &mdash; lists checks and alternatives before nominating an article for deletion that are applicable before considering carrying out Gutting, as well.
 * 2) WP:NRVE &mdash; notes: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." one must consider source coverage of the topic of the article, not simply lack of citations in the article, itself.
 * 3) WP:WIP and WP:PRESERVE both encourage trying to fix things rather than going first to deletion as an option.
 * 4) WP:NEGLECT is not a deletion rationale.

Alternatives to Gutting



 * There are alternatives to removal of sourced material when improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia. These include but are not limited to: Quality improvement, Discussion, and Nomination without Gutting.

Quality improvement

 * 1) The WP:Article development process lists several constructive steps in the stages of improving an article.
 * 2) WP:DEVELOP: This link has good advice and resources on how to research a topic on Wikipedia. Looking at the same page in other language versions of Wikipedia sites may help find additional sources or ideas on how that topic is covered in other languages. Key things to keep in mind during research are WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Citing sources.
 * 3) Research: The friendly people at WP:Reference desk and WP:Help desk may be able to help editors find sources for additional research.
 * 4) Good article nomination: Attempting to improve an article to Good Article quality is a good step in the Quality improvement process. This involves research and potential expansion of a stub article to meet the Good Article criteria.
 * 5) Guild of Copy Editors: The Guild of Copy Editors are a fabulous bunch of people who help to copy edit articles on their way along the Quality improvement process. Requests for copy edit can be made at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests.
 * 6) Peer review: The peer review process is a good way to get feedback from the community about the state of the article, and suggestions on ways to research it and improve its quality further. Posting neutrally-worded notices to talk pages of WikiProjects relevant to the article's topic may help gain participants at a peer review discussion.

Discussion

 * Discussion is a good first step to attempt before nominating an article for deletion.
 * 1) John Broughton notes in the book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, "Before initiating AfD, explore alternatives to deletion. AfD is a last resort, when an article is unsalvageable and there are no alternatives."
 * 2) Discussion should take place in the form of polite communication with prior contributors to the article in question at that article's talk page, in order to foster a positive collaborative environment.
 * 3) As a courtesy, those in the process of deciding whether or not to nominate an article for deletion, could consider first commenting at the article's talk page, and notifying prior contributors to the article at their user talk pages.
 * 4) Ideally, the potential nominator and prior contributors to the article would work constructively together to improve the quality of the article and address concerns raised through discussion and editing.
 * 5) Per WP:TALK, it is important to remain on topic, and focus the discussion on how to improve the article itself.

Nominate for deletion without Gutting

 * 1) Editors who nominate articles for deletion may have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to editing the article during the same timeframe as the ongoing WP:Articles for deletion discussion.
 * 2) If motivated by a nonconstructive intention, this may be because they nominated the article for deletion, they may want it deleted from Wikipedia, and they may be removing sourced content from the article and Gutting the article to try to make that happen.
 * 3) In order to avoid impropriety, it might be best for individuals who wish for the article to be deleted and gone from Wikipedia, to refrain from Gutting the article while participating in polite discussion at the deletion debate.
 * 4) An option could be to simply nominate the article for deletion, and then walk away, leaving the rest of the discussion up to others and placing their trust in the final outcome as determined by other members of the Wikipedia community.

Constructive Gutting

 * Gutting may be the result of a natural editing sequence, in which one or more experienced editors comes across a poor-quality article and removes content and sources that don't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.


 * There are times when masses of material must properly be deleted, specially when the gutted content violates Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, each of which could involve possible legal consequences for Wikipedia.


 * Most often, gutting is simply the removal of unsourced content or content based on sources that are unreliable under the sourcing guideline WP:RS or WP:MEDRS, or content that fails the content guidelines WP:OR or WP:NPOV. This happens a lot.  It takes time to learn the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Be patient with yourself and with other editors.


 * If "gutting" editors find nothing left that is salvageable, they may redirect the article to another one, or they may open one of the several processes to delete the article.

What to do if your work is Gutted

 * Consider the reasons why it might have had to be done. Don't take it personally. Once you add content to Wikipedia, it is no longer yours, in any sense.  Even though you may have worked very hard to create the content that has been gutted and the carcass has been nominated for deletion, you may have screwed up.  We love editors to be bold, but beware of "owning" an article you create.  So first and foremost, take a deep breath, be calm, and be ready to listen to other editors.  The subsequent discussion will be a real test of your character.


 * Don't revert. Per the very helpful essay, WP:BRD, open a discussion on Talk and ask - really ask - what the issues were with the removed content.  When reading replies, remain calm, assume good faith, and if reasons based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ("PAG") are not provided in answers, ask for them.  When those reasons are given, take the time to actually read the portions of PAG that are provided.  (Even experienced editors can forget fine points of PAG.)   Watch out for wikilawyering all around (including yourself) - always pay mind to the spirit of PAG as well as their letter.


 * Becoming upset and leaping to assumptions about malicious motivations of the "gutter" is corrosive to the foundational policy of Wikipedia, WP:CONSENSUS. If an editor doesn't listen to other editors and simply flings charges of nonconstructive editing, Wikipedia becomes a hellish place and it is impossible to resolve conflicts.  However, If another editor gives clear evidence of having conflict of interest or advocacy issues, the COI notice board (for COI) and neutral POV noticeboard are the places to get community help in managing those issues; don't make it your personal mission to teach the other editor a lesson in being neutral.  Please read the guideline for what to do when dealing with an editor with a COI.


 * Competence matters in Wikipedia. Someone may be a subject expert but be ignorant of PAG; likewise someone may know PAG inside-out but know little about the topic.  Wikipedia can be beautiful when editors recognize their own limitations and their own strengths, and the same in others.  We can all grope our way toward excellence together.  So take your time and really work through the issues that are raised.


 * Remember that in Wikipedia, there are plenty of ways to resolve disputes by bringing in other editors. Avoid getting locked in to a dispute with a single editor, if only one person is opposing you. Really try to work things out, but if you cannot, calmly and simply acknowledge that, and begin seeking other input through notice boards and requests for comment.  It never has to get personal.

Nonconstructive Gutting

 * Gutting from a possible nonconstructive motivation may sometimes refer to the disruptive removal of sourced content from an article directly before a deletion discussion.


 * 1) Gutting sometimes takes place directly before or during a deletion discussion on Wikipedia, primarily prior to WP:Articles for deletion.
 * 2) Gutting may also be gamesmanship by someone with conflict of interest or advocacy issues seeking to eliminate an article.

Motivations for nonconstructive Gutting
Gutting may sometimes be motivated by a desire for the article to be deleted.


 * 1) Sometimes the desire for the article to be deleted from Wikipedia stems from a motivation of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Someone may arrive at the article page and find that it's full of quite well-researched sourced content &mdash; but content that they personally disagree with.
 * 2) They may fear that if they nominate it for deletion at that point in time, then the result might be "Keep" at a deletion discussion.
 * 3) They therefore may decide to first go about Gutting the article, prior to nominating it for deletion.
 * 4) The act of Gutting when tied so closely to the time-frame of the ongoing deletion discussion itself may come across as suspicious to those surprised by the removal of sourced content from the article.
 * 5) It may be best as a first option to attempt to simply work constructively with other major contributors to the article to improve sourcing at that article.

Signs of nonconstructive Gutting
Possible signs of nonconstructive Gutting may present similarly to those of WP:Tendentious editing. Some indicators may include:
 * 1) Removal of a large amount of sourced content from an article during a specific timeframe of directly before or during an ongoing deletion discussion.
 * 2) Disputing the reliability of good sources and removing them from the article anyway.
 * 3) Deleting the cited additions of others, especially during an ongoing deletion discussion.
 * 4) Ignoring or refusing to answer questions from other editors about removal of sourced content from an article.
 * 5) Refusing to accept independent input when other editors are critical of the removal of sourced content from an article.

What to do if nonconstructive Gutting is found
If you feel you've found instances of Gutting that match the indicators above,
 * 1) Remain WP:CIVIL. Allowing yourself to become upset or heated in discussion may have a negative impact on that discussion itself. Try your best to remain calm and polite in your dialogue.
 * 2) Attempt talk page discussion. Try to engage the user that removed the sourced content with a discussion on the talk page of the article.
 * 3) Discuss the sources. Perhaps the user that removed sourced content had a valid reason or a concern with the reliability of one or more of the sources. You can post a query to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard in order to ask independent previously-uninvolved members of the community for opinions about specific cited references.
 * 4) Work on a draft version. Rather than engage in WP:Disruptive editing at the article itself, you can post a draft version of sample sourced content, either to the article's talk page, or in a Userspace draft. This way, you can demonstrate to other users in the community a draft of sourced content which can be discussed in an attempt to achieve WP:Consensus.
 * 5) WP:Dispute resolution. If you can't come to an amicable compromise, there are options of seeking out independent previously-uninvolved editors such as the WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment processes.

Consequences of nonconstructive Gutting

 * Gutting from a nonconstructive motivation may be disruptive to Wikipedia in several ways, especially during an ongoing WP:Articles for deletion discussion:
 * 1) Editors may have worked hard to research and add sourced content to an article. When they see their page being gutted and summarily nominated for deletion without prior attempts at discussion, they may react emotionally. Note: This does not excuse behavior that violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY on the part of the authoring editor.   All editors are always responsible for their own behavior and for governing their reactions.
 * 2) This may lead to further disruption between those who Gutted the article and those that put in time to research sourced content for that article.
 * 3) It may also unfortunately lead to outbursts of incivility from multiple perspectives.

Disruption

 * Disruption caused by Gutting can take the form of:
 * 1) Edit-warring at the article &mdash; repeated removal of sourced content only to be added back by prior contributors and researchers at the article.
 * 2) Disruption at the deletion discussion itself &mdash; in the process of Gutting some may attempt to remove lists of salient sources compiled by article researchers on the deletion discussion page or its talk page &mdash; others may feel this is an attempt to hide lists of potential sources of references that could be used in the article.
 * 3) Disruption of other mainspace pages &mdash; as the researchers of the article may try to work on it further in a copy of their userspace, and may find that version getting Gutted, as well.

Incivility

 * Problems from Gutting from a nonconstructive motivation may unfortunately lead to incivility:
 * 1) Researchers who spent time adding sourced content to the article may get upset at seeing the article Gutted. This may lead to uncivil discourse between some who wish to remove content from the article and prior researchers of the article's topic.
 * 2) Incivility may have the impact of harming the deletion discussion process at WP:Articles for deletion, as it may detract from discussion about coverage among sources.
 * 3) This may have the unintended result of obfuscating the nature of the deletion debate, turning the deletion debate into a new conflict in and of itself. (See more on this tendency at deletion discussions, at WP:Articles for deletion is not a war zone.)
 * 4) Conflicts of this nature have caused multiple editors to leave Wikipedia.
 * 5) Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates give good advice for conduct and how to comport oneself when commenting in a deletion discussion: "Good practice for reviewing AfDs is to read the article in question thoroughly, do any other research necessary (such as looking for information online, checking backlinks, and doing basic fact-checking), and then give a reasoned opinion based on the article's content and Wikipedia's policies."

Deletion is not cleanup

 * 1) The deletion discussion process may not always be the best method to use to cleanup the page.
 * 2) The irony with Gutting is that one may oftentimes first Gut the article page, and then argue at the deletion discussion page that the article needs cleanup &mdash; without first mentioning that they themselves removed a considerable amount of sourced content from the article a few moments before.
 * 3) It may often be more constructive and less disruptive to work collaboratively with other users to improve the quality of an article and its sourcing, through research and discussion on the article's talk page.