Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 41

2nd nominations
There doesn't seem to be any guideline that I can find about second nominations for deletion. Is there any period of time after an article survives a deletion nomination that the decision is binding for? What are the particular circumstances under which it is permissible to nominate an article for deletion again?Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any set rules. I have heard one a few occasions that it is good to wait six months for AFD with a clear keep consensus and less time for a no consensus close though that is no set in stone and there are likely other views on the subject.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These things are handled by the community anyway. If people think a second nomination is taking place "too soon," they'll let the nom have it, and quite a few folks will reflexively vote Keep on that basis alone.  I've seen objections as soon as three months later, but I can't imagine anyone complaining for six months.   Ravenswing  17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the situation after a single keep, 6 months is enough, but it helps to consider the likelihood of getting it deleted the second time (this can be judged by examining the number, nature, and arguments of the !votes and the close, and considering whether perhaps consensus on the problem involved has changed--for example, if there was an almost unanimous keep at a well-attended AfD, one might not want to proceed, but if almost nobody appeared, a second try might get proper attention).  After a non-consensus, it can in principle be renominated immediate, but that risks another non-consens, and most people wait for a month or so. If there have been repeated keeps, the intervals expected become longer. (as I rough guide, I'd suggest doubling after each successive keep as a minimum)   DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I rather recently had WP:DEL pulled on me, with an editor quoting it as saying, simply: "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." That struck me as specious not only because nom #2 was well over a year after #1, a "a reasonable amount of time", but also because the relevant part of the applicable guideline, WP:ORG, had changed a lot, possibly in ways that eroded the original Keep case. Of my two rebuttals, the latter strikes me as potentially particularly strong. I didn't explore that route, but I think common sense says that renomination might be allowed immediately after any consensus-based cahnge to a guideline, so long as the change seems to have negative implications for an article's present notability. To give an admittedly unlikely example, if WP:NHS were somehow voided, every article about a high school would suddenly be directly exposed to WP:ORG. How many would survive? I was, however, a bit unhappy to have to respond: "... note the immediate context : the case of repeatedly renominating without much delay." I'd far prefer that the guideline itself did not leave that "without much delay" part to anybody's imagination (or, as the case may be, to their tendency--for lack of common sense, it seems--to supply out-of-context quotes of guidelines and policy.) I also wish it said something about how an article's notability status can change when guidelines change. Of course it's common sense to me. And, I'm sure, to you as well. But probably not to certain kinds of people who bog down AfD. Yakushima (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Move Deletion policy to Deletion?
Most Wikipedia policies and guidelines no not include the word "policy" or "guideline" in their names. To make all the pages consistent for cataloging, I've suggested we adopt a convention one way or the other. Come on over to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines to discuss. --Bsherr (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines is an appropriate page on which to discuss the convention, but its applicability to Deletion policy should be discussed here.
 * I agree that "the page names of policies and guidelines usually [should] not include the words 'policy' or 'guideline,' unless required to distinguish the page from another." However, I regard Deletion policy an example of the latter situation.
 * While Deletion has redirected to Deletion policy for a while, there are other pages (such as Deletion process and Guide to deletion) that would be reasonable targets, along with the various deletion fora. Given these pages' existence, an ambiguous title like Deletion probably isn't the most user-friendly choice.
 * In my opinion, the most helpful setup would be for Deletion to function as a disambiguation page of sorts, serving to briefly describe the various deletion-related pages and point people in the right direction. —David Levy 02:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - in fact we could probably tidy up these pages and merge some of them together.--Kotniski (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Ruler interpretation
The ruler says:
 * Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect.

For example, I boldly redirected an IMHO unsuitable article to another article.

Should another user, who disputes the change start discussion in the attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page before he undo my change? Or vice versa, the another user can undo my change and restore the unsuitable article and then I have to start discussion in the attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page before I restore my redirect? --Perohanych (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the latter interpretation is more consistent with WP:BRD, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone choosing to discuss earlier in the process. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jclemens is right. Another factor to consider which most people ignore is that we should not care too much about the current state of an article.  Obviously vandalism and BLP stuff need to go, but the single biggest proximate cause of edit wars is that one or both parties are convinced that the current state is wrong and needs to be fixed rather than focusing on the end state.  As long as one party to the discussion can take a deep breath and afford to "lose" in the short term, everything will go smoothly.  whether that happens after the first or the second edit is kind of immaterial so long as it actually happens. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting your user page?
This article apears to offer no information on this. I assume editors have control over deletion over their userpage or drafts of articles tied to their userpage i.e. pages of the form user/article. I have upgraded an article from a draft on my user page to an actual article and now would like to delete the draft as I think it is now a waste of space. --MATThematical (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just place a db-userreq at the top of the page and a sysop should be by shortly to delete it (unfortunately the "delete" button is unavailable for non-sysops even on your user pages, alas). wp:u1 has more about this kind of request. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Should good faith articles which are deleted be userfied as Standard Operating Procedure.
There is an alarming hemorhage of editors away from WMF and it seems that one reason is that people feel shut down when their articles are deleted. Sometimes editors delete new articles on sight which were live drafts, or for various reasons which are not quite correct. In many such cases, the articles are properly deleted, but they are salvagable. Under current policy, the burden is on the hapless user, often a newbie, to track down an admin who can undelete. I propose a guideline that encourages user-fying as the preferred default disposition of deleted articles. Any thoughts? (Oops omitted tildes Bard गीता  23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC))
 * I'd be dubious unless good-faith were stringently defined. Spammers may argue that they thought in good faith that they were permitted to advertise their penis-enlargement services here; authors of hagiographies of their favorite unsigned boy bands, ditto. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Maybe the guideline policy should be modified to suggest admin discretion, basically encouraging them to consider doing so if in their judgement it is a good faith attempt to create an article...?


 * More direct response to your point, let's say rather than strictly defined, leave it to broad discretion of the admin?


 * Alternatively,maybe deleted pages could carry a notice for say 24 or 48 hours helping newbies figure out how to recover the text and admins could be encouraged not to delete new pages if they are not going to be online immediately after the deletion?


 * Or perhaps even admins might put up a warning template much like speedy delete templates?  Bard गीता  23:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As we say in the article space, citation needed. Every time the issue of deletion comes up the current rate of inflow/outflow of editors is brandished as a reason to do XYZ.  Show me the data.  Show me some compelling data driven argument supporting the claim that article deletion is driving net outflow.  Until then I'm totally unwilling to go along. Protonk (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some numbers regarding retention of new editors. To be clear, I don't present these to prove a point.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 00:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heck no. This was proposed just a few months ago too and also totally flopped. Very few deleted articles are sourcable enough to be retained on Wikipedia in any capacity, and the last thing we need are thousands of unsourced articles which will receive little to no scrutiny as they're in userspace. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Data or not, some common sense ideas come to mind here. With respect to userification, admins (not to mention the original tagger) already have the option of choosing to userify on a case-by-case basis (when the article really does have encyclopedic potential, and not in every case), without the need to codify rules about doing so. More broadly, CSD taggers as well as AfD discussants should (as a matter of good judgment, again not requiring further codification) be attentive to WP:BITE as they go about their work. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Good faith contributors should be thanked, certainly, but no, unsuitable material should not be put in userspace if the user has not even asked for that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 81 (November 2010) is the most recent proposal that I found. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting...it seems that (1) the preponderance of the deletions are little more than that, but that (b) there is a minority of articles that are salvagable, (c) there is a shared concern over WP:BITE It seems that a problem is that useried articles are nevertheless searchable on google, bling, etc. Which, and I am sure that OrangeMike and others will agree, is not a desirable result. Maybe there could be (1) a more thorough post-deletion notification of deleted users, via a template, of a process for recovery of their writing via either userification or email, which would keep it off our domain, or (2) a more explicit warning to people building a new article that if the article is deleted, they may have difficulty recovering their written copy. Bard गीता  04:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the most recent one was Wiki_Guides/Change_CSD_to_userspace_drafts which closed less than 2 months ago at 5 for, 36 against.  This is clearly not something the community would stand for. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the number of times I've had to delete, and even suppress, unacceptable userspace "articles" - most of which show up as top hits in search engines - I think this is a bad idea. Risker (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be time to revisit the noindexing of userspace. Give users the option to use INDEX (a few insist their pages should be findable), but by default the average bits of jetsam and flotsam don't turn up in search engines. Rd232 talk 11:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a distinction between articles that need to really be deleted and articles that are simply unacceptable in their current form; articles which should be accessible, with no-indexing, for reference. Here are three examples of such articles.
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Radio Sandwell is one of 100 radio stations in the UK with a "community radio license" and Radio Sandwell was the first such radio station to be removed from mainspace after an AfD. The current consensus is that the article needs one more "decent" source to be restored to mainspace.
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Kippax Uniting Church is another article that barely failed AfD and can be expected to be restored to mainspace.
 * Articles for deletion/MHG Systems shows the story of a brilliant Finnish software engineer by way of Pakistan being driven off of Wikipedia. The article was deleted shortly after I was accused of adding "high quality reference Wikipedia formatting...revealed...for what it is."  Two weeks ago, I wanted to review the Google translate I used for a Russian press release referenced at MHG Systems but could not do so, I see no purpose to letting only the admins have access to this material.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives to deletion
WP:Deletion policy (WP:ATD) is often cited as Wikipedia policy due to its position on this page. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:ATD. Compare to WP:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE).

User:Jclemens made this revision to the WP:Deletion policy subsection: "Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally are merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear." Considering ATD's status, I think these examples (including those present before Jclemens's edit) are more appropriate for listing at WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, an essay tagged with supplement. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're objecting to the change because you believe it expands the policy based rationale for merging... is that correct? Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I would describe it in different words, that's close enough. I think that an AfD comment like "Merge Fictional element X to a list as generally done per WP:ATD." should be considered a WP:VAGUEWAVE rather than a "policy-based argument" and that the change chips away at that. I have no idea of overall outcomes, but I do see fictional elements deleted despite lists being available and sometimes the lists themselves being deleted. I have been concerned with references to ATD for some time; for example, see the prompt for WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61 (January 2011). Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather thought it strengthened the expectation that if there's a good place for content to be merged, it should not routinely be deleted, no matter how people phrased their belief that it shouldn't exist as a separate article. ATD is about defining this in policy; OUTCOMES is about describing how such merges are done (e.g., elementary schools to their districts) Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends on one's definition of a "good place" – some content just shouldn't be merged, even if an obvious merge/redirect target exists. Do you think that non-notable fictional elements are a) generally up-merged or b) routinely deleted? The new sentence would fit in OUTCOMES, as it includes classes of articles that are generally kept, merged (with typical merge targets), and deleted. WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes echoes the sentence here on celebrities' family members. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any opinion on changing "generally" (indicating something probable) to "may" (possible)? I think examples are good to mention, but I think that "generally" should be moved to OUTCOMES. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely opposed, in that it fundamentally changes policy. The current wording expects that everything else (editing, redirecting, merging, etc.) must be not applicable before deletion is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy is supposed to be "descriptive, not prescriptive". I think that the wording and your interpretation do not reflect practice, based on the AfDs and RfC mentioned above. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How to handle the case of a remade article created after a AFD ending in merge?
My Little Pony Friendship is Magic cult following was taken to AFD with the end result of "merge" back into the main article My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. I helped on the merge, and incorporated some new articles that came to light on the cult following including mention in Wired and Time, but since stand by the assessment that it length of the current article is so short that there's no need to break out the fandom yet (eg, it is not like Star Trek and Trekkie where both articles are easy nearly SIZE limits. That article's creator mentioned s/he was going to be remaking the page with better sourcing using what I had added to the the main show page, creating a user draft and then moving that into Cult following of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which pretty much duplicates the current section "Reception and cult following". I warned them that it wasn't really the sourcing that was at issue, but just that separately out the short fandom section from a short show article was frown on, but they continued with this.  I don't believe this editor is getting that its not the sourcing (even if it is better now) but that its simply a matter of better organization of material in one article instead of two.

Now, if this was the case of a deleted article, I would call that new article substantially the same one that the AFD had reviewed and would seek CSD g4 means to fix the issue. But with a merge result, that's different. Is there any process that is like CSD G4 that would apply to the case of a merged article or is the only option to seek out a new consensus via discussing the possibilities of a merge? (I don't want the new article deleted, but I ideally want the merge w/ redirect to stick from the previous AFD). --M ASEM (t) 12:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would follow the spirit of WP:G4 in cases like this generally; if the new article substantially duplicates the old, the original decision (i.e. the AfD) applies and the new article can be merged/redirected without the need for further procedural steps or discussions. That said, can does not imply should, and the main priority should be to give articles to topics that deserve them; there is good reason to believe that in this case the sub-topic of the cult following is notable in itself due to the spate of recent focused coverage. In summary, you would be justified in redirecting, but you probably shouldn't.  Skomorokh   13:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I felt, it could be but it would be seemingly wrong to do this. I've already started a merge proposal on the affected articles as a separate thread towards resolution. --M ASEM (t) 13:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Help me clarify the chronology here: If one or more new independent RS came to light after the merge decision was reached, and the "new" article on the old topic/name has sufficient independent RS that deal non-trivially with the subject, G4 is entirely inappropriate, and even starting another AfD may be unproductive. Contra Skomorokh, there is no such thing as "the spirit" of a CSD: if there's not a clear-cut unambiguous match (same text, not just same topic) and no immediate harm that would justify IAR, then a novel discussion referencing the prior one is the best route to go.  If it's a slam-dunk with only the editor who broke out the material again objecting, that'll be simple enough. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the clear and narrow strictures of the speedy deletion policy. What I meant by "the spirit of G4" was something like "if a page has been through a consensus process where it is decided to fix it in a certain state, that decision can be applied to pages that are close copies of the original page".  Skomorokh   16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the reason to merge was not because of a lack of sourcing or notability, it was because the topic really was best organized within the larger topic of the show given the current state of both articles. While new sources have come since the AFD to further boost the notability of the cult following, it is still bad organization with the state of both articles to split them as such, in the spirit of the arguments of the original AFD. It is, essentially, the same article (though I've reprosed and sourced certain facets better), but still suffers the problems addressed in the AFD. --M ASEM  (t) 17:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's all that the issue is, then local consensus should probably govern. While it may look stupid to outsiders, if the primary editors of the article want to split out a subtopic that can both stand on its own with adequate sourcing, or be included within the parent article without violating SIZE, then it's really up to them. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:ND3 The consensus from the AFD is extant until it is voided by another discussion so a further redirect and requesting protection if necessary is appropriate without further discussion. The idea is that the user wanting to restore the article has to find a consensus for the unmerge on an article talk page before they can do this. Consensus can change - but only after a further discussion of some kind. Spartaz Humbug! 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ... Except that that's an essay, and not consistent with other post-AfD actions. If a deletion discussion results in a "delete" outcome, and new independent RS'es come to light, anyone can recreate the article without needing anyone's permission to do so, because the objection that led to the AfD has been addressed.  That essay presupposes that a "merge" discussion would need a new discussion somewhere to evaluate that past consensus, even in the light of newly discovered independent RS'es, which makes no sense. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But a merge isn't an administrative action so if the undoing of the redirect were reverted then the onus would be on the user wanting to recreate the article to establish that the consensus to merge had changed through a discussion. Bold means one undoing of the redirect then its time to talk. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, WP:BRD works fine--I thought you were saying that the first un-redirecting would need prior consensus before even starting, which seems like inappropriate prior restraint. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update
It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD procedure clarification
There's a discussion at WT:CSD that relates to this page. We are talking about more cleanly differentiating between what we should do if the author objects to the CSD (e.g., says the article isn't spam) vs. if some independent editor objects to the CSD (e.g., says the NPPer screwed up when he tagged the article as "unambiguous spam").

Generally, editors feel that the procedure outlined here is correct if the author objects, but unclear about what to do if someone else does. With the exception of attack pages, people generally feel that objections by independent editors should be treated like a contested prod (=that is, they can be sent to AFD, but not speedy deleted). Since CSD criteria are based on the idea that we're only speedy-deleting things that are "uncontestably" or "unambiguously" (spam, attacks, copyright violations, etc) then this seems reasonable enough to me.

In the category of complexities, we may need to assume that all objections from IPs or non-autoconfirmed accounts are socks of the author. There's also some concern about pointy-headed disruption, i.e., that an editor may someday take the notion of objecting to every single CSD, and we need to leave enough room for the admins to ignore that.

If you have opinions about how to clarify this, please feel free to join the discussion. We need to decide both what to say and which page(s) to say it on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally an objection which does not merit removing the tag outright (which any editor aside from the author may do...if the policy hasn't changed radically since I became an admin) should be given the same consideration regardless of the source. If I make an article on a band and object to a speedy is it any different than if a friend makes an article on a band and I object to that speedy?  Obviously the author of an article inherently objects to a controversial speedy, but if they make an argument then that argument should be addressed on the merits.  As a matter of practice I would prefer that editors patrolling the CSD queue who feel strongly enough to object to a speedy should consider simply reviewing the deletion and declining it. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is while most of us believe that removing the tag outright—something that "any editor aside from the author may do"—should stop the CSD, some of the admins appear to believe that removal of a speedy tag (by someone other than the author) is something they should feel free to completely ignore. It's not absolutely clear on this page what should happen to an non-author-contested speedy.  This policy does not directly say, "Any editor aside from the author may remove the tag, and if some admin still thinks the page should be deleted, then that admin should take it to AFD, not just delete it as if there had been no objection in the first place."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * and the other part of the problem is that some inexperienced NPPatrollers do not actually realize they can remove the tag, and simply leave it on.    DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that there is a contest this speedy delete button, we ahve many objections on talk pages. I suspect that many of these are from people who would never otherwise edit Wikipedia but count as readers.  Admins should read the talk pages objections too too see how controversial it is. THere are not often policy based arguments supplied there though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay, seeking feedback
I've been working on User:Tryptofish/Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions. Feedback prior to moving it into the mainspace would be welcome (there, rather than here). Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Placing of deletion templates
''As no-one has commented, I've moved this query to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout) to try to find some interest! Pam D  12:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)''

Should deletion templates go above or below navigational hatnotes?

WP:HNP says that hatnotes are placed "at the very top", and cites accessibility issues, but doesn't mention deletion templates among the examples of things which hatnotes precede.

If deletion templates count as "Maintenance templates", then WP:LAYOUT and WP:LEAD specify that they go after hatnotes. But various deletion instruction pages refer to putting deletion templates "at the top" of pages, and this seems to be common practice.

I suggest that they should go below any navigational hatnotes / dablinks, because these can otherwise get submerged below large templates, making them difficult to see for sighted readers, and causing particular problems, I assume, for readers using screenreaders etc. WP:GLOSSARY doesn't define "Maintenance template", so gives no guidance on whether that term includes deletion templates.

An example of the problem is here, where a redirect was over-written by an article which is being PRODded: the redirect, still needed, survives as a hatnote but is easy to miss below the large PROD template.

Is there any statement anywhere which specifies where speedy / prod / AfD templates should go on the page, relative to hatnotes? If not, I suggest that there should be - though not sure just where!

Any thoughts? Pam D  19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEL modified
I removed the see also and put CSD as the first bullet point, based on a recent discussion at WT:AFD in which editors expressed a lack of clarity in terms of CSD applicability. This is a more direct way of expressing that CSD is part and parcel of the Deletion Policy, not some secondary method of deletion. I will look and see for other examples of lack of clarity elsewhere. --Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction between Deletion policy and WP:REFUND instructions
The deletion policy (at WP:DEL) states that speedy deletions should be appealed at WP:REFUND, but the instructions there explicitly state that it's not for handling speedy deletions, and such requests are routinely denied (and the requester told to contact the deleting admin). One of the two needs to change, and since policy is supposed to be descriptive, I would suggest it should be the policy. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The place to challenge speedies is the admin's talk page and then DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With one exception, CSD G7. Rationale here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude and copy-vio - no amount of consensus can allow copyvio to remain. We cannot !vote ourselves into a DCMA takedown :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this was meant somewhat tongue in cheek, but DRV is still the place to context copyvio deletions. We do make errors identifying sources, licenses and permissions all the time. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is still a relatively critical issue as of December. As it stands, we're still instructing users in this policy that they should contest most speedy deletions at WP:REFUND, which then further explains to them that only certain speedy deletion criteria will be eligible, and then again in the edit notice and administrator instructions that few or none will generally be eligible for undeletion. —  C M B J   21:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process
There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is so far the fourth page where Northamerica1000 has posted the same thing, and each time he asked to have the discussion on that specific page. I think it would be wiser to have this discussion in one location, and suggest that Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is the best place for this. Fram (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to delete
Hi. I am still new to this. I found an article that I think should be deleted because it does not have any of the reliable sources or notability policies fulfilled. I am not sure which deletion to use. I read the page here and I see there are a lot of different types. Can anyone help? The page in question is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuCom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magister of Destruction (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Process!
It needs to say how administrators delete pages! Pdiddyjr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
 * It's explained here. FYI you aren't an administrator so you won't be able to delete pages. Hut 8.5 21:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I need to know so I can become one! Get that into your head! Pdiddyjr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Knowing how to delete pages isn't going to help you become an administrator. Knowing when to delete pages will. Hut 8.5 21:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I KNOW! Only delete them when they are put up for deletion using the delete templates!Pdiddyjr (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, no, the fact that something has a deletion template on it doesn't necessarily mean you can delete it. You ought to know that the probability of someone with under 500 edits passing WP:RFA in the near future is pretty much zero. Hut 8.5 21:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with company name change and old URLs
Hi, I am trying to address an issue with my company's page. We changed our name from Developers Diversified Realty to DDR Corp. in September. I updated the page then and merged the old with the new. It now redirects to the new. However, there are currently two pages with the new info on Facebook, but one has the old company name. I'm assuming it's because there is still a wikipedia URL with the old name. I'm thinking we would want to delete the old URL but not sure if this correct or how to go about it.

Here is the new URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR_Corp.

Here's the old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developers_Diversified_Realty

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developers_Diversified_Realty_Corporation

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Mrado (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they seem to be correct here. Perhaps Facebook is just very slow to update their mirror.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is that Facebook's mirroring is naive and pulls down the full HTML without recognizing redirects. Earlier this year, I noticed that Facebook had generated pages by scraping Wikipedia categories, including non-article ones for maintenance and users. I suggested that the user contact Facebook at User talk:Mrado. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If we were to delete the redirect URLs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developers_Diversified, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developers_Diversified_Realty and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developers_Diversified_Realty_Corporation) would that fix this? We have contacted Facebook previously and haven't heard back. I'm not optimistic on them being helpful with this. Users searching for us by old name should still be able to find our new page because we reference our old name in the article, I assume. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrado (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting the redirects might fix things, but it might not. In the worst case, Facebook will not update the pages, and their links will be broken due to the deletions. I don't have much direct experience with Redirects for discussion, but I think that it's unlikely that the redirects will be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete Something
I need an administrator to delete "List of conflicts in Australia", I created the article but after having complaints made about it I think its best to just remove it. I have already deleted much of the information but the page itself needs removing thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.194.68 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you did not write it as the creator it is not that easy, you have given no reason to speedy delete it, and no sign of any blanking, so ❌ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)