Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 14

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)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination would be the best I know of. If the concern is notability (as it usually is), you should work to verify that sources are unlikely to exist. Searching, reading the talk pages, and the like are helpful here.  Hobit (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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. Mango juice talk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:


 * Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 17

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

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 Deletion debates. cygnis insignis 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


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

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: 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)

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)

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)

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. undefinedUntil  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. undefinedUntil 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)

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). 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 Oversight. 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)

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations
The section Deletion_policy 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 Deletion_policy 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 .--Rockfang (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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 --M ASEM 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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 Deletion policy. 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. Grace notes T § 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 Deletion policy. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)