Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 48

Fix-it-now-or-delete-it
Hello all -- I got into this discussion in the context of a particular article. I was asked to bring the conversation here. The article had lain fallow for eight years. Here is my comment: "If threat of deletion is not enough, then adding a tag or category, or leaving a tag in place, is unlikely to help this list, some members of which go back to 2006: We need to deal with these items one-by-one, as the editor has done. The alternative is to postulate that all of them have a valid reference somewhere on the web, and delete all million reference tags.
 * Needs references: 205,958
 * Needs references (BLP): 2,695
 * Needs more references: 314,990
 * Needs more references (BLP): 49,779
 * Needs in-text citations: 88,878
 * Needs reliable references: 63,898
 * Has unsourced quotes: 1,138
 * Has unsourced statements: 325,912

The response was this: "There are over 5 million articles on WP so your numbers are not so shocking in that context. These fix-it-now-or-delete-it ultimatums are simply not in line with deletion policy. If you disagree, we can continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy."

I do disagree. We might well take some advice from our own article, SMART criteria. When we set out to improve WP, we need to address five things: We don't assign tasks to individuals, but we do put up queues that we ask people to address. When we put up measurements of progress, people are more likely to get involved. What you choose to measure is what you improve. When a tag sits on an article for five years, I don't see the danger of putting a week deadline to fix it or forget it. We put deadlines on new articles. The same standards should apply to musty old ones. Rhadow (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Specific – target a specific area for improvement.
 * Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress.
 * Assignable – specify who will do it.
 * Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.
 * Time-related – specify when the result(s) can be achieved.
 * , can you please ping or otherwise notify the editor in question? TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kvng and TenPoundHammer This may interest you. Rhadow (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And to answer your general question, WP:N is a guideline while this page is a policy that incorporates other guidelines and policies. WP:NPOSSIBLE exists and is important (I've argued from it in the past), but WP:DEL7 is also a part of our deletion policy that reflects our most core content policy: WP:V. I think PROD is likely the best way to deal with these articles as if someone comes up with sources its easier to undo. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But DEL7 does require the nominator to try and fix the article (as does WP:PROD), something people often overlook. Regards  So Why  15:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course, but it is a valid deletion rationale in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, and I am appropriately chastised. Rhadow (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Discussion about the specific article can continue at Articles for deletion/High-loss calculation.
 * What I thought was getting at in comments there was more general and it looks like I was right.  There is now a proposal to apply SMART criteria to Wikipedia project management and apparently no reluctance to use AfD to power that.
 * Professionally, I am a project manager (among other things) and I appreciate the value of more structured approaches like SMART but the work I and most others do here at Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTEER and I would not be happy if Wikipedia turned into a work environment. In a volunteer organization we have to make room for different volunteers operating in different ways with different levels of commitment and find a way to make productive use of everyone's contributions. And so we have not adopted SMART or other structured approaches. Instead we have WP:NODEADLINES and essays counter to that to describe what we're doing.   But we're not going to force a single development philosophy on editors and so it is inappropriate to nominate articles in development for deletion to force things along because progress has not been adequate by any nominator's assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kvng -- I too have been a project manager. I am not speaking as a PM, but as a systems engineer.

WP has two constituencies, the editors and the readers. We owe our readers an encyclopedia they can trust. We owe our editors a fun place to work according to their ability and inclination. As a broad generalization, it's more fun to create a new article than fix an old one. You can observe that when you read editors' self descriptions. "I have created n articles." We have created an environment in which it is easier to create a new article than click click click to the backlog. Once you get there, it takes more skill (apparently) to fix an old article than to face a clean screen and make something new. We're in a situation now in which I guess that half of new articles go into the dustbin (I don't know where to find the stats). Fully a quarter of all articles have a tag, some going back more than a decade. Think of the all the wasted blood, sweat, toil, and tears that went into the new articles. If we could figure a way to guide new editors to the old stuff and give them some psychic rewards for addressing them, the entire encyclopedia would benefit. When the procedure for new editors changes, we need a way to give them an easy pathway into the archives and a set of rewards for fixing the old stuff. Perhaps an automatic barnstar for fifty references added and tag removed. I'm thinking here of easy process pathways and positive feedback, not a job assignment system, like work. Waddaya think? Rhadow (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Bad new articles are an acknowledged problem and there are efforts to address this and that discussion should continue elsewhere. I know there's the whole unresolved deletionist-inclusionist sentiment. That's an ongoing struggle and there's no point debating that here.
 * There are a lot of underdeveloped articles and not a lot of editors working on them so the thing that I think needs to be discussed here is subjects that do meet the criteria for inclusion but whose articles are in sorry shape. We may change the policy (and this would be the place to discuss doing so) and decide that we're going to give up on them. Under current policy we don't do that. So I want to see editors stop using WP:PROD to try and quietly remove low quality articles. I want to see us spend less time at AfD discussing the content of articles. I don't want to see nominations of older articles based on poor article quality and thin Google search results from editors with little familiarity with the subject matter. I want to eliminate the fix-it-now-or-delete-it tension in some of our discussions.
 * I gather that most of this is fueled by the desire to improve the quality of the encyclopedia and I get that. I understand that following a link or search result to a stinky article does not build confidence. So why leave that crap around in public view? I use Wikipedia every day in my work and when I'm researching something and come across a patchy area, I improve it. Obviously improvable material is an opportunity to convert readers to the kinds of editor that you want to see - one that makes improvements to existing articles.
 * I would love it more new editors would start by improving existing articles. I think a lot quietly do actually. Some just seem to need to cut their teeth on a new article. I don't know why but I try to respect all non-disruptive volunteers. In any case, I don't think you're going to get editors engaged in helping improve the encyclopedia by deleting their work. ~Kvng (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I just find it incredibly frustrating when I find an article that has literally had no edits in NINE FUCKING YEARS, everyone screams "keep" in the AFD, but no one steps up to the plate to fix up the article. So ten years later, the article is still gathering dust while everyone waits for everyone else to add the sources. Sitting on your hands doesn't get shit done. If you think it's notable and can prove that it's notable, then fix it. Don't just sit around expecting others to do it for you. Theatre of Zambia should not be in the pitiful shape it's in now. If it's notable, then goddamn fucking FIX the fucking piece of shit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're frustrated. If we were employees and you were boss, you might briefly get some traction by venting like this. That's not how WP works and your fellow editors don't want to be addressed in this way. There is nothing in deletion policy that says an article has to make certain progress over a certain period or it is subject to deletion. Please stop trying to delete such articles. ~Kvng (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So what should I do then, just let the article sit and rot in its horrible state? Apparently "There is no deadline" means the same thing as "It'll fix itself" and/or "Not my fucking problem". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If if there is no case per policy for deleting it, yes, it should be appropriately tagged and sit. If you want to see improvements made to articles like this, consider trying to get some energy at WikiProject Abandoned Articles or any of the other WP:BACKLOG projects. If you would would like to purge this stuff, you are welcome to suggest changes to deletion policy and I believe the page we're on is the place to do that. ~Kvng (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What you should do is pretty well anything other than to claim that theatre does not exist in Zambia. Several editors pointed out that that claim is problematic, but in the spirit of collaboration didn't mention the elephant in the room that it is obviously racist. As you continue to argue the point then it is necessary for someone, and it might as well be me, to tell you that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Groups of articles
Above, you'll find a suggestion that PRODding an old article in hopes of a quiet deletion is the wrong approach. The alternative, after a good faith effort to find references, is to bring it to AfD. The results will be much ink spilled and teeth gnashing. Here is a list of families of unreferenced articles, none of which have seem to have English language references and each of which have had a PROD reverted without any improvement, only an assertion that the topic is notable:
 * Tram stops in Japan
 * Television show episode lists
 * Biographies of sixteenth century Samurai warriors
 * Computer, telephony, and engineering terms apparently copied from government documents

These articles are likely never to grow beyond stubs, even with references. They could be consolidated into lists, where the standard of notability is lower. A fifth of articles are flawed in some way. If we don't improve or remove them, the credibility of the entire library will suffer. Rhadow (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In some cases here there is not a case for notability and no assertion by the deprodder of such. The problem in many of these cases is that the deletion is potentially controversial and PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions. Reorganizations like this may merit some editor discussion before they are implemented in a way that does not allow WP:CYCLE (WP:REFUND is too cumbersome and blind to use here). I have suggested for classes of articles like this, they either be brought to AfD as a group for discussion or be boldly redirected (WP:ATD-M or WP:ATD-R) to a list or parent article where the topic is mentioned. I don't believe they should be picked off individually using PROD because that is inefficient and creates inconsistent coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, Kvng so if there is a class of articles with the same problem, PROD or AfD is inappropriate in your view. The result would be uneven coverage. Here is the approach I took with Tram stops: I put it to RfC. You can find the example at Talk:Iyoki Station. We are going through a similar set of examples of cricketers who have had only one first-class appearance and no sources except a single scorecard. Rhadow (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * AfD can be appropriate if the discussion is about the class or set of articles. Such group AfD nominations are permitted and encouraged for their efficiency. AfD is not a good process to use if you start a separate discussion about each individual article in the set/class. There is no means in PROD to consider a group of articles together so not a good process for this in my opinion. In all cases, I would encourage considering WP:ATDs before proceeding. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Итьь
Мот Сапоненко яков александрович (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Пожалуйста, используйте английский. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Due Process
•An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially does not belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion

The lack of due process turned shooting down new pages a constant sport at Wikipedia. A page should be challenged, with requests for citation for instance, before being proposed for deletion. There is much better chance of excellent content emerging from this challenge process than from the current deletionism that has taken hold in the Wikisphere. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Rule Change Proposal
Changes are necessary in order to more easily clear disputes (including deletion disputes) on self-serving articles, because such edits cannot be entirely eliminated. I am signaling here a case of self-promoting by Wikipedia itself: Whoever made that Disruptive Innovation entry, placed Wikipedia in the academia category (which is false) just to put it on top of the list -- and I could iterate 3 more case of self promoting articles I encountered in the last two months only. Simiprof (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) With certain exceptions, new articles should be allowed a given number of months to mature, before they are proposed for deletion. Better yet, articles (new or old) should be reviewed for deletion periodically, based on their low traffic.
 * 2) Voting in an article-deletion case should NOT be permitted to unregistered users.
 * 3) Users known to have added content to articles of the same categories as the article proposed for deletion should be invited automatically to cast their vote. In this respect the following features should be implemented by Wikipedia developers:
 * 4) The edits of registered users should be metered and used to build a database of users' expertise. An expertise level on a subject should associated with the user's name, with the possibility of displaying such an expertise rank on the respective user's page.


 * Literally none of this is ever going to happen. See WP:PEREN just for starters. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This has got no chance of passing:
 * Automatically nominating articles for deletion would just annoy whoever worked on the article. At the moment Wikipedia has 5,551,930 articles, most of which have low visibility, if we want to consider every one for deletion every five years that would be 3,042 per day. AfD doesn't get a tenth of that and plenty of nominations have to be relisted because nobody participated. The vast majority of these articles would pass easily so all you've accomplished is to waste a load of time and piss off a load of people. It isn't any sort of burden to expect that someone articulate some kind of argument if they want an article to be deleted.
 * Unregistered users can make valid contributions to the discussion. If they don't or if there is suspicion of sockpuppetry then they are already likely to be ignored.
 * There are already mechanisms to categorise AfDs by topic so that people with an interest in that topic can participate if they want to.
 * Systems of designating people "experts" have been proposed many times in the past and failed. The problems here would be (a) there are no clear criteria for designating such an expert and (b) people should be making valid arguments in discussions rather than relying on status. It wouldn't be fair if a decent article was deleted just because some people with high edit counts didn't like it.
 *  Hut 8.5  21:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a new article review called New Page Patrol WP:NPP. Deletion is only one of the options. Since deletion debates are not actual votes then the number of votes from IPs don't matter, rather the strength of statements does.. Automatically inviting people would likely cause a lot of annoying invitations for prolific editors! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, none of these would happen. 1). is wildly impractical and a perennial proposal. 2). isn't a terrible idea, but IP address votes are already mostly ignored at AFD, and occasionally an IP commenter will contribute significantly to the discussion such as finding sources. 3) is wildly impractical and would be very annoying. 4) is even more wildly impractical and against the spirit of Wikipedia, which tends to dislike tiered classes of editors. In short, none of this will happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that this needs more holes poked in it as its full of them already, but the last two points also fail to consider semi-automated tools like WP:AWB. I edit a lot of articles on Alaska, this past week an AWB user lit up my watchlist making the same minor change to all of them. It appeared  they were making this same change to all articles on geographic locations in the United States, so under this proposal they would now be an expert on all 50 states and invited to every AFD related to the Untied States. Seems legit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me guess - it was, see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was. I see there are now blocked for those mass edits, so they aren’t even really an expert at AWB either. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about AFD process for articles that fail inclusion on main space
Hi all

I've been looking at the deletion policy after working to improve some articles that were nominated for deletion. The new editors who created the articles were all confused about the process and I want to try to help to make it clearer for them. I'm trying to understand if there is a set decision tree process for articles that have been decided should not be included in mainspace. My question is if the AFD discussion decides the article should not be included in mainspace, does not meet speedy deletion criteria and does not include defamatory or copyright infringing materials is it policy that the 'alternatives to deletion' (Editing and discussion, Tagging, Merging, Redirection, Incubation, Other projects, Archiving) have to be exhausted first before deletion happens? The policy page appears to be ambiguous as to whether these alternatives must be exhausted first or if they are simply options for the admin to chose if they want.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There isn't any requirement that all the things you suggested be done first, and articles are frequently deleted without all or any of them happening. They are more things that someone should consider before nominating an article for deletion. If there is an obvious merge target, for instance, then it is recommended that the nominator propose a merge rather than deletion. If the nominator doesn't think any of them is a good idea or doesn't think they would resolve the issue then they can nominate the article for deletion instead. Closing admins won't normally bring in one of these options unless it was proposed by someone in the discussion.  Hut 8.5  21:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, one more question, is it a requirement for nominators to consider these other options before nominating it for deletion, or is it a requirement for the AFD discussion to discuss these alternatives? I guess what I'm asking is it a requirement to consider these alternatives at any point of the process of considering an article for deletion?
 * Thanks again
 * John Cummings (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The nominator is supposed to consider them, yes, it's considered good practice at the very least. However there isn't a great deal of enforcement of this and the nominator doesn't have to explain why none of the alternatives are suitable or anything like that.  Hut 8.5  21:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, very helpful. John Cummings (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * . Editors are supposed to consider alternatives to deletion first and the steps are detailed at WP:BEFORE.  This procedure is commonly flouted and the main reason for that is that Twinkle has made deletion the easy option.  Uncle G, who was most active in Wikipedia's early days, once explained that the deletion process was deliberately made difficult so as to discourage editors from using it.  Automated tools like Twinkle then subverted this design.  Sensible steps like talk page discussion, article improvement and merger, are avoided by drive-by patrollers who use Twinkle in a crude button-pushing manner because that's the easy way to rack up a high score.  The editors who do this then get to be admins and a systemic bias then results.  To see this in action, consider this discussion which recounts the history of a highly disruptive deletionist who has been repeatedly indulged and enabled, even though their abuse of deletion procedures has been quite blatant.  See also the law of the instrument. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the information, it's very helpful, my experience with deletion discussions is that moving an article back to user space for further development appears to have been a viable solution for most of the articles but this often doesn't happen.


 * Can you tell me if there have been attempts or discussions on what benefits might be gained by reducing this behaviour or ways to try and reduce it? E.g:


 * A requirement to explain why each of the alternatives for deletion are not possible/viable options, as part of the article for deletion nomination process.
 * A clearer outline of the decision making process required to nominate an article for deletion, perhaps through a decision tree diagram.


 * One more question, for articles which fail AFD but do not fall under a category that means they should not be public (i.e not speedy deletion criteria, defamatory or copyright infringement), is there a rationale behind deleting these articles rather than archiving or moving them to user space where people could develop them further?


 * Thanks again


 * John Cummings (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, do you know the answers to the questions above? Would be really appreciated. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For more information about the general history of the issue, please see deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Where the content is sensible and promising, you can request that an admin userfy the content by moving it to a user page or draft space.  This would then make it available for more work.  There was a proposal to make this option universal – Pure Wiki Deletion.  That approach seems quite sensible but it has yet to be adopted.  I plan to attend a discussion soon about the Future of Wikipedia and will be interested to see what the executives of WMF/WMUK have to say about this issue.  Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There isn't any official requirement to explain why the alternatives aren't viable options. The nominator is supposed to consider them but this isn't explicitly enforced (and it would be impossible to enforce without making people give an exhaustive explanation that would usually be boilerplate). If an article is nominated and one of the alternatives is clearly a good idea then the AfD can decide to go with that alternative instead of deleting the article (e.g. merging that article with another). Userspace isn't supposed to be used for indefinite storage of content which isn't considered suitable for the encyclopedia (WP:NOT), so we don't typically userfy articles unless someone wants to work on them. Most admins are happy to userfy articles deleted at AfD on request, unless the deletion reason is something which means the content shouldn't be public. The usual procedure is to ask the admin who deleted the page and go to WP:REFUND if that doesn't work.  Hut 8.5  18:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much and  for your replies, Andrew, I'll see you at the event, maybe we can chat more then :) John Cummings (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of RFC on proposed amendment to Article Rescue Squadron guidelines
There is currently a discussion to amend the usage guidelines for Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list located here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for the deletion of talk sections?
I would appreciate being directed to the place where they are! --Mathmensch (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TPG covers rules for talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Transwiki
The Deletion policy section describes the Transwiki process, which is marked as historical and hasn't been used since 2012. This is the same on most other WMF projects, and the meta page hasn't been updated in just as long. Should the section be removed altogether or marked in some way to show that it is no longer being used (and if so what would be the best way to do that)? I did just blank the section but then I remembered that it has at least one redirect pointing there (WP:ATD-TRANS), and I don't want to break links. ansh 666 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to get rid of it, links or no. We don’t really do that anymore. For some reason most other projects don’t want us to dump our trash on them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Raised also at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Can we resolve it here so that the two pages remain in parallel? – If no-one appears soon to argue that we should keep the section, I'd say get rid per the two editors above, and do similar at Deletion process Noyster (talk),  15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I was on the other page, but keeping the discussion in one place is a good idea. In this AfD which is still open contains transwiki !votes, and I am sure there was another one somewhere a few weeks back (maybe it was my !vote, can't find it). Guide_to_deletion, Glossary, m:Transwiki, WikiProject Transwiki, Transwiki log and this page all need updating, and the articles with active transwiki templates need being dealt with (in Category:Copy to Wiktionary). Some attention also needs to be made to Template messages/Moving and templates like Template:Copy to Wiktionary. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The process has been deprecated - it's no longer maintained on any wiki, so it'd be useless for a single one (en-wiki) to keep it active. ansh 666 18:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is going to take some effort to disentangle and remove all the transwiki artifacts. Partly because moving images to commons is included. (I presume that one is to be kept). Things like Template:Deletion tools, Template:Transwiki maintenance etc. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * But if we're not going to do this process, shouldn't we either make Wiktionary entries manually in appropriate cases, or try to turn the deletions into a stab article?  DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think I ever edited Wiktionary so I don't personally know what their position is. Really we do need to get more input by posting somewhere with ore traffic. Like the WP:VP perhaps. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ehh. Wiktionary has a very different format and requirements, so even if a couple Wikipedia editors think that an entry could be created there, it may not fit very will in actuality, in format and/or in content. If it does fit, then yes, it would be appropriate to manually make a Wiktionary entry. As far as stubifying, the few AfDs where I've seen transwiki as a suggestion have been for articles that are more or less stubs (since if an article passed WP:NOTDICT there'd be plenty more to write about), so that's not a particularly relevant course of action. ansh 666 00:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Transwiki
Should all Transwiki processes (but not "move to commons"), templates, categories, policy pages and mentions in other policy be completely removed and/or marked historical?

Survey
I see no reason not to do this RfC as above, but it is also something that could possibly be objected to. No-one is even commenting on deletion nominations of some Transwiki templates. Consider this a way to get consensus to edit a number of pages and delete a number of templates and categories all at once. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The question is not the transwiki process or the templates. The question is what we should do with article submission that are little more than dicdefs. My own view is that most s of them could be turned into an article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am about to remove all he prod templates on transwikiable articles. They needto be checked to see if real WP articles should be made.

I already left some of the more obvious valid topics, some are fine, others not. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your suggested RfC: there needs to be a timestamp (if not a full signature) to close the opening statement; the four hyphens are superfluous, as is the "Survey" subheading. So it becomes  In addition, it would help if these processes were explicitly named, preferably linked. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Prince of Thieves has been blocked as a sock of a globally banned user (as I'd suspected since they appeared), so they won't be able to carry on. I honestly don't think an RfC is necessary. ansh 666 04:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He’d be quick to remind you just a “global lock on sight LTA, not technically global banned, user.” 🙄 (the only symbol in any language applicable here.) Regardless, he is community banned here so his opinions don’t matter. If you want mine, if we don’t use it, get rid of the references, no RfC needed. Practice is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of people banned from meta, my computer can't read emoji text, so I had to open the page on my phone to actually see what you were saying . Anyways, I'm going to go ahead and mark the Transwiki process pages as historical. I don't know if we need to remove references entirely, since I guess things can still be manually transwikied. ansh 666 20:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Distinction here?
"Articles that cannot be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" What's the important difference? How is something to attribute to a reliable source? Notability is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; that should be sufficient to govern coverage. How is one to evaluate the "possibility" of a topic being covered in a reliable source?

It seems like perhaps a different, more specific word is meant. E to the Pi times i ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done some further reading on this phrasing. WP:NPOSSIBLE seems to be where this phrasing is inherited from. But I think both this policy and that guideline should use the alternative phrasing of "likelihood" instead of "possibility". Likelihood emphasizes the editor's weighing of relative factors in evaluating the existence of sources, while possibility suggests an absolute, less nuanced analysis. E to the Pi times i  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I also note "If it is that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." (emphasis mine). I am currently doing a copy edit of that section to reduce redundancy; I will post a diff here when I am finished. E to the Pi times i  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * From my reading, "cannot possibly" means there is no way that sources exist while "cannot be attributed" means no one has found sources but does not rule out that they exist. Imho, "cannot possibly" only covers things where a RS cannot exist while "cannot" also includes things were finding a RS has failed but it cannot be ruled out that one exists somewhere (probably offline in some library). As with all changes to policy, proposing a change first seems the better way to go. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I read "cannot possibly" similarly to SoWhy above. To me it means that there can't exist a source (even if we invented one) which could verify the claim. For e.g. NOR, we couldn't verify a novel claim in a wikipedia article from an outside source, because then it wouldn't be a novel claim introduced in a wikipedia article anymore. Contrary to the claim made above, this is not a nuanced analysis. Rather, it is a categorical exclusion and so I think phrasing which implies otherwise would damage the meaning of the section. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My initial edit misread the criteria and misunderstood its meaning. I have reflected on this further, and I've just now put my finger on exactly why I took issue with the phrasing "cannot possibly": it is an indirect phrasing. The purpose of the deletion criteria is  to allow (ensure?) the deletion of locally-invented topics that are inherently non-notable by the very nature of  (in this context, locally invented is used to refer to concepts shared by a small group of people but not generally known or understood by the wider world, with the general exclusion of factual ). I think a talk page discussion at WP:NOTABILITY could perhaps pave a path for better phrasing, because I do not currently have a good phrasing to approximate with maximal clarity the concept that is trying to be encompassed by this guideline.  E to the Pi times i  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. The deletion policy is broader than notability--the section we're discussing here doesn't relate to notability at all. Protonk (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't read it as at all ambiguous or even confusing. For a truly obscure topic, sources may or may not exist--say, a musician whose one and only single barely made the Polish dance chart in 1983--sources may or may not be out there and if so, likely hard to find.  On the other hand, sourcing some topics is literally impossible--the swell neologism me and my cafeteria buddies came up with last period--there is absolutely no chance any sources could exist, and trying to find them is inherently futile.  We love sourcing so much that it's easy to forget it's totally possible some things are inherently unsourcable and always will be.  Andrew Lenahan - St<b style="color: #FF5500;">ar</b><b style="color: #FF8000;">bli</b><b style="color: #FFC000;">nd</b> 15:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of inappropriate redirects?
Is an inappropriate redirect, e.g. from a program name to one component of that program, eligible for speedy deletion. Is there a special process for deleting the redirect? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is WP:RCSD, but I'll guess that WP:RFD will be more appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary"
Every edit on Wikipedia is "based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary". All admins and all functionaries are members of the community. So that leaves "based on the judgment of the community", and that isn't worth mentioning because all edits on wikipedia are made based on the judgment of the community (or at least one specific member of that community). Edward Mordake (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's correct at all. All editors are members of the community, but that doesn't mean that one editor is equivalent to "the community". You can't claim that there's community consensus for something if you're the only person who's expressed an opinion on it. The United Nations is made up of countries, but that doesn't mean that a decision by one of those countries is a decision of the United Nations. I think there's value in the sentence you removed in that it indicates that the decision to hide a discussion from view can't be made by anybody - it has to be an admin, oversighter etc or the result of a discussion somewhere. If you have an alternative wording I'd be happy to hear it.  Hut 8.5  17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One administrator is neither equivalent to "the community". Admins are on equal footing with every community member, except that they have extra tools to use when needed, and the whim of one administrator does not override community consensus.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Administrators and functionaries are generally granted wider discretion to act on this sort of thing unilaterally in practice than other editors. While IAR could apply and an experienced editor act unilaterally on their own, typically that would be after community discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It think anther way of saying it might be that admins are selected by the community to represent the best interest of the project and interpret consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I replaced the removed text because it seems to refer administrative processes i.e. WP:REVDEL and WP:SUPPRESSION. Jbh  Talk  00:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It also covers courtesy blanking (the section title is "Courtesy blanking"). I'm not sure I agree with all the arguments presented above but I agree with this trimming of this sentence, as a reflection of policy. I've seen experienced editors do courtesy blankings before, and of course deletion can only be done by admins. This is all clearly explained in the following paragraph, so this lede is just wordiness (and potentially confusing). -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The editor who brought this was CU blocked as a sock of   Doug Weller  talk 07:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

ATD-R and double redirects
I have a page in mind that I think shouldn't be a standalone article, but should still be a redirect elsewhere. So let's say I do so, and a few days later, someone else notices and reverts the change (at which point, maybe I can gather consensus for it, maybe not). There's a bot that will come along and change all the incoming redirects to avoid double redirects (I don't know exactly how often it runs). But if my change is reverted the bot has made its changes, is there any process (automatic or otherwise) for restoring the bot's changes as well? Do I need to be worried about this? Thanks in advance, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're asking. What are the actual pages involved? You do not need to list the incoming redirs. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The particular page I was thinking of was E-folding, which I wanted to redirect to Exponential growth. E-folding itself has a few incoming redirects, so if I actually make this change, it's my understanding that a bot would change all these to point to the new target in order to eliminate double redirects.  My concern is that if this happens, and then my change making E-folding redirect to Exponential growth gets undone, that these redirects would continue to point to Exponential growth.  But then, all those redirects which were changed to avoid doubles should be changed back to (at least in the mean time).  Of course, someone has to be thinking of this and care enough to fix it (unless the bot is smart enough to go back and check), and even then, it seems like it would be exceedingly tedious.  Is this an actual concern, or am I worrying about something I shouldn't be?  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 11:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Afaik, is the bot making those changes and it only runs manually according to it's user page. So you might find it easier to contact  directly and ask him whether the bot keeps a record of those changes that you could manually restore if needed. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 12:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, no. There are several bot accounts that fix double redirects, and I rarely use my bot for that purpose. check User:Xqbot and User:AvicBot. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To the original q. If E-folding gets redirected to Exponential growth, then yes, a bot (we can't say for certain which one) will amend all the redirs that pointed to E-folding so that they point to Exponential growth instead, and there is no automatic process for undoing such a bot edit. It's not too bad though, since there are presently [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/E-folding&hidelinks=1 only three of them]. Make a note of these before you carry out the redirection, just in case you decide to unredirect later on. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"redirect" as something different from both deletion and merger?
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Obviously calling my edit "vandalism" (that is what the second "v" stands for, right?) is inappropriate, but I don't know how I could be "jumping the gun" on anything. Frankly that "discussion" has me a little confused: I thought I was asking a question about the appropriate use of the AFD process, not proposing an amendment to any policy or guideline, and yet a bunch of people have starting casting "support" !votes (and one one or two even "oppose" !votes) on some kind of proposal they read into my question. The comments can be read in a manner that adequately answers my original question, so I'm not complaining about that, but I'm not prematurely implementing a proposed amendment that was apparently never actually proposed. If I had meant to propose a change to the deletion policy, I would have come here, not there. And since I don't think I was actually making a proposal to amend the policy ... well, I also don't think there will be any point in the future where my recent edit (which was only related to WT:AFD thread in that the latter convinced me the former would be uncontroversial) is not jumping the gun.

Anyway, I don't think this is even a substantial change to the policy, but rather a simple fix of some fairly clumsy writing: either all possible meanings of "redirect" are covered under one or the other of "deletion" and "merger", or the technical distinction that non-admins can revert blanking and redirecting is irrelevant because cases like this are also covered under the latter even though they can't be undone by non-admins. (I don't know if I am able to show you, but if I recall correctly Spartaz initially deleted the page and then immediately recreated it as a redirect, which would I guess be a fifth category...?)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling it vandalism. "Rvv." is just a habit, didn't know that's what the second v stood for. My apologies.
 * The common point in this discussion and the one at WT:AFD is your understanding that redirecting is a form of deletion (or is "functionally indistinguishable from deletion"). The long-standing consensus is that it isn't. In fact, redirecting is explicitly listed on this page as an alternative to deletion. That is why redirects are mentioned in WP:DEL5: it isn't appropriate to delete content forks if they can be merged or redirected. Redirecting is not the same as merging.
 * What Spartaz did there is a delete and redirect. The first part is covered by the deletion policy, the second isn't. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:ESL. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the community really agree with WP:ATD as policy?
I searched the archives of both here and WP:VPP and couldn't find much, so I apologise if this has been discussed recently. From what I can tell, this is the beginning of WP:ATD in its present form, and it has remained largely the same ever since, albeit with a few additions and amendments over the years. I don't know if it had consensus, and I see no point in trying to find out, because it won't change anything even if there was consensus: it's the consensus of today that matters, not the consensus of 11 years ago. And I'm not entirely convinced that the community actually agrees with its status as policy: there are many, many cases of what would appear to be WP:IGNORINGATD cases (which I actually find a bit strange as I was under the impression that WP:ATA is a widely accepted essay on deletion?).


 * Articles for deletion/Cad-Capture Group - Client of a notable organisation, yet no-one even considered WP:ATD-M or WP:ATD-R.
 * Articles for deletion/Vergenoegd Primary School - A redirect per WP:ATD-R would still have fixed the problem.
 * Articles for deletion/Tuncay Öztürk - This was speedied as G7, but that aside, WP:ATD-M or WP:ATD-R were likely still applicable (see WP:INVALIDBIO)
 * Articles for deletion/The Art of Problem Solving - Again, redirection would also have solved the problem.
 * Articles for deletion/Lifoti - Notable (or so it was thought at the time) founder, but no merge or redirect for whatever reason (it should be noted that the founder's article was later deleted).
 * Articles for deletion/Grace (musical group) - Notable member, yet I was the only one who even mentioned an alternative to deletion. Also, despite ATD, WP:FAILN, and even CSD policy itself (which does say ATD applies), my A7 decline on those grounds was "invalid reasoning".
 * Articles for deletion/Joe (website) - You could be forgiven for thinking I was in the wrong just by mentioning alternatives! I'll let the AfD and this "discussion" do the rest of the talking.
 * GF Biochemicals - Here we likely had WP:ATD-E and WP:ATD-I, but even in the worst case scenario, we had WP:ATD-R. But A7 prevailed per WP:NOTINHERITED. It was restored, not because it was decided the A7 was wrong, but because someone wanted to improve it. In fact, if memory serves, there was a pretty much unanimous consensus that it indeed should have been speedied under A7. If I remember right, WP:ATD occurred to no-one (myself included if I'm not mistaken!).
 * Articles for deletion/Data Networking/Spring 2017/ - WP:ATD-TRANS was obvious, but nope.
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Camp - While this was redirected, from what I can tell it was entirely at the closer's discretion. Consensus was to delete and no alternative was considered.
 * Articles for deletion/Ajit Gunewardene (2nd nomination) - No redirect, going against WP:ATD-R and WP:INVALIDBIO.
 * Articles for deletion/Xtian de Medici - . So why not redirect there?
 * Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery - . . Same as above.
 * Articles for deletion/Levi Sanders - Could have been redirected to his notable parent, but that wasn't talked about (another target was proposed, but that wasn't to be either).
 * Articles for deletion/Hurricane (group) - Apparently had a notable member, but wasn't merged or redirected.

There are likely many more out there (i do remember articles having merge/redirect targets getting speedied under A7, but can't remember what they were). I also noticed that an admin said here that many editors ignore ATD entirely, and I have to concur. I have to question WP:ATD's status as policy, if it's ignored so easily so often. I can think of no other policy where you can easily get away with pretending it doesn't exist. ATD may be a good principle, but from what I can see it's far from a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Policy is supposed to reflect the norm. not dictate it, no? Thoughts? Adam9007 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy reflects ideals and then local consensus determines how to apply those ideals in specific circumstances. Editors are given a lot of leeway in determine how to best deal with an article brought to AfD. Just because something can be merged or redirected doesn’t mean it should be, as that is fundamentally a content decision. Just because an ATD is suggested does not mean the community has to agree the suggestion is correct or that the closing admin has to weight it more. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But WP:FAILN (a notability guideline) says . Are you saying that isn't the case? Also, there's a difference between deciding against ATD and not even considering it. The problem here is that it's often not even being considered. Adam9007 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notice often not always. It's imprecise language. A better way of phrasing is may be. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The answer to this is simple: it's not required to implement an alternative to deletion if one exists. That's why most of the sections use "could" or "may" instead of "must". ansh 666 01:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above answers are fundamentally incorrect. WP:ATD leads with "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." (emphasis mine) The discussion of this or that may be done or can be done are just options among which editors can chose, but if ANY of them are more reasonable than deletion, that option is the policy-preferred outcome. Editing, stubifying, merging, redirecting... each are editing choices, and deletion is reserved for when none of them could work. (Of course, just because something could be done but isn't or hasn't, that also isn't a good reason for deletion either, but misguided editors argue for this essentially constantly) Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me: the question of whether the ATD are more reasonable is a question to be sorted through in individual AfDs. Simply screaming ATD at the top of one's lungs doesn't matter if the rest of the discussion participants don't think it is a reasonable outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure all of these are great examples of ATD being omitted. For instance, a few of these were speedy deleted under CSD#G5, that is, the article was created by a sock of a blocked or banned user. Deleting those is quite correct. Another seems to have been a draft dumped into the mainspace before it was ready, by someone else. Here there's no sense in preserving the edit history since it's still at the original draft. The case of Lioti is an interesting one; often we're reluctant to redirect or merge to another article if the proposed target is itself a good candidate for deletion. Speaking more generally, for a merger to be a credible alternative, we need to identify useful material to be merged (ie sourced and relevant), and a target article that would be improved by its inclusion. Typically that doesn't happen. Instead, people tend to suggest we merge unsourced material into an article that's also bursting at the seams with cruft. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 10:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This. Any legitimate ATD will gain consensus, but someone suggesting to merge unsourced crap content into an article that is already in poor shape is not likely to gain consensus, even though it is a theoretical alternative to deletion. ATD are content decisions, and despite what people like to claim WP:DON'T PRESERVE is an equal part of the editing policy to WP:PRESERVE. Individual editors can make the determination that the alternatives to deletion, while possible, are not the best for the specific circumstance. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes The main alternative to deletion is ordinary editing.  We have millions of articles and only about 1% of them are considered to be of good quality.  The other 99% have a variety of issues and, most of the time, these are addressed by ordinary editing, not deletion.  So, in considering this question the sample space is not just the few cases where a topic has been taken to AfD because ATD has already been broken in those cases.  It's like the similar case of WP:BEFORE.  You don't tend to notice the cases where this is followed properly because they don't result in an AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just AfD, it's CSD too. I think Joe is an excellent example of that. Adam9007 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I do. I can't speak for "the community". But I think the basis for doubting that it is a little dubious. There are nearly a hundred AfDs started every day, so producing a couple of dozen examples where WP:ATD may have been neglected does not tell you much about views across the project. I'm fairly certain I could match each of your examples for one where a citation to WP:ATD led to a speedy keep. The fact that it has remained on a prominent policy page for more than a decade without serious contention (?) would also suggest that it is widely accepted. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds to me like consensus by silence, which, even after 11 years, is at best a weak form of consensus. Silence also doesn't necessarily mean consent. Adam9007 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. If a problem can be fixed by editing, fix it.  Reserve deletion for where it is needed.  Skipping ATD means putting unnecessary questions into formal processes, which hurts the project by overloading the bureaucracy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because policy is ignored in a small number of cases, it does not mean it is not the standard we should try to follow. WP:CSD is routinely violated by a few admins but that does not mean the policy should be abolished and replaced by "do whatever you want". ATD is not a standalone policy after all, but merely a mirror of all major policies and guidelines, since any policy or guideline that deals with problematic material recommends editing over deletion whenever possible (cf. WP:PRESERVE). If there are problems, they mostly stem from admins not weighing arguments correctly. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 13:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * -A few or rather ?! &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 11:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It gives people who want to preserve information something concrete to point to. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. ATD is a good policy and it reflects consensus. If we can fix a page without deleting it (such as by merging or redirecting) we should do that. Sometimes we can't do that, for example, because there is nothing to merge (eg all the content is unverifiable) and the page name is not a plausible redirect to anything. James500 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably. I see no convincing evidence to the contrary. Speaking for myself. I think it is good advice, to be used where usefully applicable. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More or less, sure - If we're looking at the extent to which ATD provides hard rules, here's really all it can/should be boiled down to: "Deletion isn't always the best way to deal with problematic pages/content. If editing can fix the problems with the page, this should be done rather than deleting it. If the content can be added to another existing article, it should be merged. If the page subject is covered by an existing article, redirect to it." And then in individual cases we discuss whether these apply or whether it should be deleted. That discussion often happens at XfD. It's appropriate to talk about other possibilities at XfD; it's not appropriate to point to this to try to invalidate an XfD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Alternatives to deletion should always be considered. That doesn't mean they will be the best course of action in any given situation, but deletion should only be happening when the alternatives are either not suitable or have been tried and have failed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Misleading or confusing
Why is being misleading or confusing (in a way that can't be fixed) not a reason for deletion? Or is this supposed to be part of the "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" reason? And articles with so many spelling errors and broken grammar that they help absolutely nobody? Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Names
Is Deletion policy/names and surnames actually still policy? It isn't set out as a normal policy page and looks like it hasn't been touched for years. If it is still "live" it should be moved to the notability guidelines. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure it was ever policy, but it isn’t now, I’m pretty sure of that, so I’ve marked it as historical. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is important and could use improvement
Jessica Starr went public with her health struggles following laser eye surgery. She ended up committed suicide due to these severe complications. The public is at risk due to the laser eye surgeries and this article about Jessica is important. I would like to fill it in, or see someone else do so, as I have time. The article ought ought to be kept up on Wikipedia. Juliet Sabine (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jessica Starr is entirely focused on application of Wikipedia policies to the article. We are not going to change long-standing policies to save that article. - Donald Albury 12:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC related to templates nominated for discussion at TfD
There is a proposal to show the inline message about templates nominated at TfD only to some users. You are invited to comment in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product
Is a page being completely the product of an Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) a standard reason for deletion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. WP:PAID specifies what is required and what is prohibited but fails to provide a consequence for noncompliance. Technically it's a violation of the TOS but I just don't see the WMF bringing out the banhammer for every run-of-the-mill UPE. Would be helpful to document our general procedure for dealing with paid editing. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is if we say it is. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pppery, I am pointing participants from there to here, because the CSD expansion proposal so woefully fails the new CSD criterion criteria and has no chance of gaining consensus. It is absurd to to argue that a CSD should apply to something that is not even agreed to be a reason for deletion at AfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was apparently confused. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As per King of Hearts, I have found this confusing. WP:PAID appears forceful, but completely lacks the "or what".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd rely on WP:NOTSPAM, which is part of the deletion policy via WP:DEL14 and/or WP:DEL4 depending on how bad it is. I generally do not like UPE blocks as UPE blocks (or heck, UPE deletions as UPE deletions), as that implies the act of declaration makes something that is usually inherently unfit for the encyclopedia somehow fit for the encyclopedia.That it violate the TOU is an aggravating factor that in my view means we should more stringently enforce NOTSPAM than we might if it wasn't written by a freelancer or firm without declaration, but in my view the question of the compliance with the TOU is secondary to compliance with local policy, which is stricter than the TOU: we require that Wikipedia not be used for advertising, and native advertising is a form of advertising. Even if someone declares that is what they are doing, it is not okay.Back to the original question: yeah, I think it is certainly an aggravating factor and I am opposed to it quite strongly, but we should instead focus on using the much more robust local policy on advertising to delete UPE rather than the WMF TOU. If we view most UPE as native advertising (as I do), we already have the policy in place to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks TonyBallioni. I think you are right, but when push comes to shove, all that implies that UPE is not, per se, a reason for deletion.  Instead, you  advise people to rely on WP:CSD#G11 to WP:DEL4 to WP:NOT (DEL14)?  You mention Native advertising, which appears to only have mention in the essay Deceptive advertising, and WP:COVERT, a section in the behavioral guideline WP:COI.  Violation of the behavioral guidelines is reason for WP:BLOCKing, not for deletion.  Should something somewhere encourage editors to take a more critical NOTPROMOTION-based evaluation when there is suspected UPE?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How I generally view it is that DEL4 is G11, and spam that is not quite at that level can still be validly deleted via discussion because of DEL14 (and NOT seems to confirm that deciding how to deal with NOT violations is the role of XfD in WP:WHATISTOBEDONE (which as an aside is both a great and not really helpful shortcut at the same time.) My view is that an article or draft being UPE is certainly a factor that XfDs can take into consideration when determining if something meets DEL4 or DEL14. Intent is important here, not just content.Re: native advertising: our policies on this sort of stuff remain in written form largely the same as they were 10 years ago, but the nature of marketing has changed since then. My view (and ping as I know he often deals with this) is that it is the principles in the policies we should be applying, and that all good policy is written in a way where the principles remain clear even if the circumstances change. I think existing principles are clear here: Wikipedia is an encylopedia and  articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts [...] Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.Expecting today's PR hacks to operate like the PR hacks from 2005 is idiotic, and we shouldn't be counting decade old marketing techniques as the only kind of advertising that is advertising. Current best practice in the industry is not to write in traditional marketing speak and instead make it look like the material is neutral, informative, etc. No one writes sales pitches anymore: they instead tell stories because stories are how marketing studies show the human brain connects. Unfortunately an encyclopedia is also a great place to write a story, so we get targeted. It is my view policy as is still prohibits this, and that we should enforce it. Finding the exact wording and exact policy to clarify this would likely be difficult given how ingrained our policies here are, but I suppose it could be helpful, but I don't think it needs to be done for the argument to be valid in an XfD because the principles remain the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with all of that. But.  I still don't know what we should generally do at MfD when an OK-ish looking draft is nominated as an obvious UPE product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While our view of "notability" for a company or person remains as inclusive as it is, we need these UPEs to continue expanding our scope. For as one of these people once aptly told me, "if we don't write about ourselves, who else is going to?" – why, only someone you pay to do it <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  13:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * YES. If we don’t make it this way, the problem will only get worse. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wholeheartedly agree that it should be, but from the standpoint of wikipedia policy, I am not so sure. Graywalls (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No - being the product of an undisclosed paid editor is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. There are already numerous justifications for deleting unacceptably promotional content or content contributed in violation of a ban, which tend to be the issues with UPE. We don't need this blanket rationale. What TonyBallioni said, essentially. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ivanvector. --Bsherr (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Editing in defiance of our rules is not legitimate editing It's vandalism, an attempt to destroy WP. Paid editing without declaration is both a deliberate defiance of our terms of use, and almost always a deliberate defiance of our most fundamental policy, WP:NPOV.
 * If anyone here thinks NPOV is of little importance, we need a discussion elsewhere.
 * Assuming that I'm talking to people who do care about NPOV: the POV when one writes for money is very strong and very direct. In practice, over my 12 years here, I have seen almost no satisfactory articles from people who are writing an article for money. As one declared paid editor told me, they don't get paid if they do not do what is wanted (and that editor is about to leave the business, because of the lack of customers who actually want a neutral article.) The articles we have been able to detect from undeclared paid editors have almost never been satisfactory. Looking back over the articles about organizations that have been accepted in earlier years about 1/4 are basically paid propaganda or advertising. Do we want to continue this?   DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with Thryduulf on this. Those taking the other position seem to be saying this: An article may be written that to experienced editors appears perfectly neutrally written, with copper-bottomed sourcing; but nevertheless, if written by the wrong people with the wrong motives, the text somehow exudes a promotional ... aura that will dispose naive readers favourably towards the company or product, and dispose more sophisticated readers against Wikipedia. I don't believe in this paranormal phenomenon <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  14:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No per Ivanvector. If an article is not NPOV then it should be (and can be) fixed or deleted for that reason, not just because of who wrote it. If an article is NPOV and meets other content criteria (sourceable, not a copyvio, etc) then there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from deleting it. I very strongly suspect that we have lots of content from UPE that nobody is batting an eyelid about because it isn't promotional and is otherwise of sufficient quality that nobody has had cause to look into the author's motivations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I very strongly disagree on this: advertising is defined by intent and context, not simply tone. I could write a perfectly NPOV history of a company. If I put it in the employee handbook, it’s just a history. If my employer pays to have it included as an article in the newspaper with the hope or raising awareness and driving sales, it’s an advertisement. Our policy prohibits advertising, not just advertising that is written using marketing techniques that are a decade outdated. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When that content is an encyclopaedic history of a notable corporation then Wikipedia benefits from its inclusion and so would be harmed by its deletion. The only thing we should be caring about is what most benefits the encyclopaedia - if it also benefits the company that is irrelevant, indeed other people are invited to share, use and reuse our content for their own purposes, including for profit making purposes. It's not a zero-sum game. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No: it actively harms us by ruining the credibility we’ve spent two decades building. Every commercial edit declared or otherwise is harmful to Wikipedia, regardless of the actual words typed because it causes us to lose public trust. If it is in mainspace and the intent is to advertise, policy allows us to delete it, and in the overwhelming number of cases we should. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more. If the words are encyclopaedic and the subject is notable and there are no copyright restrictions, then the intent of the author does not matter. Indeed the intent will be unknowable in almost all cases. The intent of many institutions who host Wikimedians in residence is to raise the profile of that institution and/or its collections. That does not make content produced by those Wikimedians any else encyclopaedic and it does not diminish the credibility of Wikipedia - indeed where our coverage of encyclopaedic topics is increased and/or improved then it increases our credibility. The same is true if the editor is editing for pay and has not declared it - if their content is good it improves the encyclopaedia, if their content is bad it harms it - in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree as good content and bad content from unpaid editors does. If this were not true, why would declared and retroactively disclosed paid editors be treated differently by the terms of use? Why would this proposal be limited to undisclosed paid editors and not to all content produced by paid editors? Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured you’d disagree. I don’t think there’s ever been a single content policy issue we’ve agreed on, so at least we’re consistent To your point: I hate deleting stuff as UPE: I don’t view the TOU as particularly useful as it is significantly weaker than existing en.wiki policy on advertising, and deletion as a TOU violation implies that the act of declaration somehow makes the content, which is very likely to be inappropriate for Wikipedia to begin with, acceptable for the encyclopedia. I’m opposed to undeclared commercial editing but I think the focus on the act of declaring is a distraction from the actual harm they are doing.To your larger point, I suspect we’re never going to agree on this. I think the view you’re expressing was probably correct in 2005 when we both needed a lot of new content to show we were relevant and before the marketing sector changed best practices as to how advertising is done. As I said above, it is the principles behind the policies that we are enforcing and the most important one is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an advertising platform, and we have the ability under current policy to delete content that is advertising already, so focusing on the declaration part is a distraction in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, exactly. What matters is that our content is encyclopaedic (and Free) - if it isn't improve it or remove it without worrying about who wrote it as that's irrelevant. If someone wants to advertise by adding encyclopaedic content to Wikipedia then why should we care? They are not harming Wikipedia - indeed the opposite. If they also benefit, then good for them, perhaps it will encourage them to add more good content to the encyclopaedia - either way we still win. This isn't any different to how it was in 2005 - we still want new and improved encyclopaedic content. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Covert advertising and PR damages credibility and is by definition not encyclopedic. You cannot make it encyclopedic no matter how much copyediting.Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are conflating content and contributor. Just because something was written by a paid editor (paid or otherwise) does not mean that it is or is not encyclopaedic. Just because something is used in advertising does not mean that it is or is not encyclopaedic (most things used in advertising are not, but some things are). Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I find both User:DGG and User:Thryduulf compelling. They appear in contradiction, but maybe not so at all.  DGG says that UPEs never create OK articles.  Thryduulf says that OK articles must not be deleted for a mere author behavioural (declaration-failure) reason.  Evidence?  Can DGG point to UPE product that was not ok (probably requires a temp-undelete)?  Can Thryduulf point to some UPE example products that are OK articles?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the articles are good quality nobody will have looked to see whether the creator was UPE or not. There is no point temporarily undeleting anything - there are loads of examples of UPE writing bad articles, nobody is disputing that, but as they are (correctly) deleted currently for being bad content there isn't a need for a new reason to delete bad content and there isn't a need of a new reason to delete good content either. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
I have created an RfC at Village pump (policy) that proposes amending General sanctions to say that deletions under community general sanctions that bypass deletion discussion must meet the requirements for speedy deletion and be reviewable at deletion review. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
I created a petition at Village pump (policy) that proposes amending Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.

There is a parallel RfC at Village pump (policy) that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit history deletion
Is there any way to delete an edit on an articles history? It’s outdated and I feel inappropriate. Blueblue998 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean revision deletion, which hides an edit from general users, but can still be seen by administrators. Revision deletion (revdel) may only be performed for certain cases established by policy. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion for a list of the reasons. If you are aware of an edit that you believe falls under one of those criteria, you can ask an administrator listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests to delete it. - Donald Albury 02:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)