Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 6

Note: This archive is arbitrarily numbered

User pages of no particular interest, containing libel, especially by pseudonymous parties
There needs to be an explicit policy regarding pages that seem solely to exist to libel people. They represent a sore temptation to some very stupid editors and extremely irresponsible administrators who will protect pages that contain statements that could destroy Wikimedia by providing grounds for a libel suit: protecting a page containing, or even frequently reverts by administrators to a version containing, grounds for a libel suit, will involve the Foundation.

The following was a warning to User:Essjay who should probably be de-adminned for this type of thing. A standard warning would be useful:

Restoring and protecting libel by pseudonymous parties
As an administrator, restoring and protecting libel by pseudonymous parties (that is, statements that cannot factually be verified to a legal standard of evidence), is a questionable act, one that could cause your administrator status to be revoked, if only so that Wikimedia does not end up taking legal responsibility for your actions. Here is the rationale for that assertion:

1. Pseudonymous parties, unlike those using their real names, and those using transitory IP numbers or obvious troll names, may seem to third parties to be trusted persons acting with colour of support of the community of users as a whole; While not revealing themselves to all users, and hiding their IP numbers from legitimate police or other investigative scrutiny by all parties, they are sometimes permitted (unwisely) to make assertions about persons. This should always be subject to very deep examination, and the more so in talk pages, since those are less controlled, and there is even more risk of presenting the false impression of a trusted person addressing their own community. Accordingly, pseudonyms should have the least rights of any to restore or revert commentary - unlike IP numbers, they can't be tracked down using the law with no administrative help, unlike real names, they can't be sued - leaving Wikimedia to be sued.

2. Repeated reverts by multiple parties, restoring comments to a record from which they may be read from search engines, will in many jurisdictions result in the body that sanctions the multiple parties (Wikimedia itself) becoming legally responsible for not preventing them from repeatedly restoring such comments to view.

3. Protecting pages so as to make further modification impossible is extremely dangerous to the Foundation; It amounts to an exception to the "anyone can edit" rule, and an endorsement of the views that are specifically being protected over all other views tht might replace/modify those.

4. Where there is an alternative wording that does not include any questionable assertions, and that is provided already, hiding *that* from sight to restore the libellous version is dangerous in the extreme.

5. Several persons who are repeatedly named in Wikipedia talk pages, and associated with the activities of anonymous or collective entities, have stated their willlingness to sue Wikimedia. Given that even Jim Wales has expressed public alarm over what has been written about himself in Wikipedia's pages, and declared it inaccurate, any frequent reversion to, or protection of, any version of any page that contains unproven assertions, puts Wikimedia in a terrible situation.

A lot of people would like to own Wikimedia's assets, including its servers and domain names, or even shut the thing down. Permitting pseudonymous parties to post potential libel and permitting people to remain administrators after restoring it to sight, and even protecting such pages, is the fastest way to ensure that Wikimedia is actually owned, in the long run, by the people who care least about Wikipedia's "community": the trolls. If this is what you wish, then by all means, permit pages like User_talk:24ip to stand, and keep reverting and even protecting them ...

Worst case example: User_talk:24ip
For those who think that use of talk pages to propagate libel is not a problem, see the sad history of User_talk:24ip, which makes abundantly clear the danger of NEVER deleting such user pages:


 * someone is apparently being accused of being a paedophile
 * someone is apparently being accused of being a frequent unpopular visitor/editor
 * someone is apparently being accused of being a specific named person who has already told Wikimedia he is watching it and ready to sue it
 * the general policy of not deleting comments from talk pages is being used as a justification to keep such questionable and dangerous comments in view
 * one administrator, User:Essjay, even protected the page in such a questionable form

Failure to delete this page and make a policy requiring speedy deletion of such pages, is going to wipe out Wikimedia sooner or later.


 * Per WP:CSD, pages that serve no purpose other than to disparage their subject are speedily deletable. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why make deleted pages invisible?
I can understand that deleted pages should be redlinks and shouldn't show to spiders, but is there any reason not to let ordinary users see deleted pages that aren't copyvios? Very occasionally I've read an interesting VfD or the like and wanted to see what the fuss was all about. N (t/c) 04:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because, if they were visible, there would be no point in the deletion. Imagine for instance a nn-bio; if the deleted page were visible, the user would still have the "glory" of being on the wiki. Similar arguments can be made for every kind of deleted page. The possibility of seeing deleted pages via Special:Undelete exists to make it possible to revert mistakes on deletion, not for causual browsing (you probably haven't seen the undelete interface yet &mdash; it's very limited; you can only see the parsed text of a particular revision (but not its source or a diff with other revisions)). --cesarb 04:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess there could be several schools on thought on that. On the one hand, consider the following scenario. Suppose an amateur guitarist adds some promotional text about himself to an article on famous musicians. Someone else reverts. Nonetheless, the text of that promotional version remains in the history forever, and the guitarist can email that link to his friends and show them how he is on the wiki. So in that sense, there is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction between how we treat promotional text within other articles, and how we treat promotional text in its own separate article. Consider this as well: A major reason we delete objectionable articles is so that they don't show up on internet searches. Whether deleted versions are viewable to logged-in users or not, we can arrange it so that deleted articles doesn't show up on internet searches. However, letting users view the deleted articles ensures that any valuable information deleted along with the article that was considered unacceptable as a whole is readily available. It also lets users see what the deleted article was like, so that if they are thinking of re-creating it, and are acting in good faith, perhaps they won't make the mistake of posting a similar article. Moreover, although I'm not too familiar with Votes for Undeletion, I imagine it could help improve undeletion decisionmaking by letting people see the article they're voting on. In conclusion, I say, let's just make the deleted articles available for logged-in users to view, and if it causes an increase in bad articles, we can always change it back. 24.54.208.177 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should be able to view deleted articles. We recently had an editor who seemed to have a major interest in merging and deleting. These will be reviewed and it would be helpful to see what was in the merged or deleted article to see if they need to be re-visited. &mdash;  Who 123  16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. I think the technology exists so that deleted articles won't show up on searches. A permalink to the deleted article can show it framed within a clear notice that has been deleted, and provide a link to the AfD discussion page. The viewing of deleted articles can be limited to users who log in and have been on WP for some time - the same way only users who are logged in can edit protected articles. Wl219 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they could be made visible, but perhaps only to a registered user who has been here for a while and has made X number of "significant" edits (need definition of "significant"), for example. Also, why not make it possible to delete entries from page histories (addressing a previous point about the stuff staying in the history)? 74.38.32.128 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Companies self-promoting
Sorry if this has been discussed before. I'm wondering whether there's any will to change the deletion policy so that admins can speedy delete clear cases of companies using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I found a page tonight Solms TCD, a company that gets only four unique Google hits, two of which are wikinews pages (now deleted). Yet according to the policy, we'll have to go through a VfD to delete it, which seems like a waste of time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The sticking point in every prior discussion has been our inability to write a "bright-line" distinction between an irredeemable self-promotion and an article that is merely a poorly written stub. Do you have proposed wording?  Rossami (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A discussion was recently raised about this at Wikipedia talk:Spam. At Deletion policy, "Advertising or other spam" is currently listed under the heading of "Problems that may require deletion," and the solution listed is "List on Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)." On the other hand, "Article is biased or has lots of POV" is listed under the heading of "Problems that don't require deletion," and the solution listed there is "List on Pages needing attention." My own proposal is that we base the decision on notability as follows: (1) If a promotional-sounding article is posted about a non-notable subject, it should be AFD'ed for non-notability; and (2) If a promotional-sounding article is posted about a notable subject, an NPOV tag should be placed on it so it can be rewritten. If the user who finds the biased article doesn't want to spend time rewriting it, it is pretty easy to temporarily change it to a stub. That also preserves any info in the history that should be retained for future reference. A rationale for this policy is that, as Rossami implies, there can be a fine line between a promotional article and one that is merely informational. 24.54.208.177 01:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:JoJan deleted "User:FuriousFreddy", it's that Dutch man. Is this vandalism? 1 October 2005 (UTC)

User:nobody

About the schools guideline
I suggest adding a reference to the school page discussion into this page section "Problems that don't require deletion". Something like :

Thoughts ? Gtabary 23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would oppose this. While there has not been consensus to delete school articles recently, neither has there been a celar consesnsus to keep most of them. This creates a rule out of a lack of agreement. DES (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that it isn't appropriate. Schools are flavor of the month at the moment, but in another six months, who knows, we could all have decided that they don't belong in Wikipedia.  Let's try to keep the deletion policy immune to such trends. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability proposal
Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unlisting a page from AFD
From the current text of the project page:

''If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item. After the original poster has seen the explanation, or in any case after about a day, the page can be delisted from AFD.''

I propose that this be re-worded. The way this reads now, it sounds like following this process would involve actually removing the transclusion from the AfD page, rather than performing a speedy keep, as has often been done. I think that even if a consensus quickly develops for a non-delete solution, the deletion discussion should still remain transcluded on the AfD page, and simply be closed. I propose the following re-wording:

"If a clear consensus for a solution is quickly reached that does not involve formal deletion, a deletion discussion may be closed before the end of the five day discussion period. Examples would include a clear consensus for speedy deletion, where the article is speedy deleted, or a clear consensus for a speedy keep. In these situations, the debate should be closed, but remain transcluded on the AfD page. However, if the proposed solution is disputed, the AfD listing should remain for the full five day period."

Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
This is already current practise (except when things go off the rails). You can probably just make the change. -Splash talk 16:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made the change. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I rewoirded this slightly. I chnged "is disputed" to "has not achieved a very clear consensus". I don't want wiki-lawyers to claim that because a single person objected, a decision was "disputed" and a speedy result invalid. DES (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Completely idiosyncratic non-topic"
"Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" has been considered a valid reason for deletion literally for years: for almost two years.

10 November 2003 (inline in the text)

17 October 2004 (neatly boxed as in present format)

It was recently removed, with, as nearly as I can tell, no discussion here. The edit comment says merely "removed extremely POV point."

I'm restoring it, pending discussion and consensus here. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be restored. - SimonP 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If in doubt, don't delete
This important part of deletion policy seems to have been removed recently without discussion. It's been part of deletion policy since March 30, 2004 (Theresa Knott compromise version).

Whoever did that, don't do it again. Please don't remove aspects of deletion policy simply because you may personally find them inconvenient. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

brenneman (t) (c) 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Added by anonymous editor without discussion.
 * 2) Adds nothing to actual policy except a pithy catch phrase.
 * 3) Don't be coy. If you've forgotten how to read an edit history, perhaps you should hand in your admin badge.
 * I don't see that the source is relevant, especially since it's over a year old. Kappa 23:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a significant paragraph, and removing it from a policy page without discussion shouldn't be done.  JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This issue was discussed earlier this year here. Fvw suggested it be removed, others disagreed. The section was rewritten and everyone seemed to accept the compromise. - SimonP 00:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That was hardly an extensive discussion, and fails to mention the apparently sacrosanct phrase that heads this section. - brenneman (t) (c)  01:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "If in doubt, don't delete?" That dictum dates to the earliest era of Wikipedia history. It was included on the very first version of this page, written when admins were first created. It has also been the key rule at Deletion guidelines for administrators ever since that page was created. - SimonP 01:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is more an interesting reflection on the past though, as back then wikipedia was rather small and IIRC when you deleted something it was gone for good, so then there was an overly pressing need for such a thing. Nowadays with all the new features and the proliferation of articles it isn't really quite as pressing. I don't particularily like the pithy statement but I can live with it, but what I would like is to have it rewritten a bit or at least a note about sock/meatpuppets in regards to the first sentence. Ryan Norton T 01:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. This was necessary when we were small and remains necessary today.  As SimonP says, the basic principle of "if in doubt, don't delete" is an important control and has been a part of our philosophy for a very long time.  Having said that, I'm less concerned about whether it stays on this page.  The principle remains in effect as part of the Deletion guidelines for administrators regardless.  Rossami (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't realize this was a content dispute - I thought it was just some random thing kappa inserted as it seems out of place in a policy page. It needs a rewrite at the very least. Ryan Norton T 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to edit war, at least have the common courtesy not to (ab)use the rollback button. Thank you. N (t/c) 00:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It stays. If Aaron can seriously convince himself that it's drivel, we definitely need it in order to demonstrate that, on the contrary, it's how we run the wiki. It's why we have AfD and require a consensus for deletion, and why bad speedies can be summarily restored. --Tony Sidaway Talk 09:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dictum
IIDDD is still being refered to as the authoritative pronouncement of deletion policy as at November 8th. It's clear from the reasoned discussion here that this is false. As this phrase appears to be confusing people regarding the nuances, I'm removing it pending further discussion. - brenneman (t) (c)  05:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. It is an authoriative statement on deletion policy and always has been. Its been an offiial policy long before any of us have been here. A very strong consensus would be needed to remove it. Moreover I'm sure most people are quotting it becuase it appears at Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it is far more prominent. - SimonP 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that one cannot simply sum up a policy page into one sentence. IIDDD is useful, and it is sometimes quoted improperly. Just like some people are all too happy to mis-cite WP:POINT and instruction creep at random whenever they disagree with something. That doesn't mean they're bad pages, just that they can be abused. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the "If in doubt, don't delete" guideline. &mdash;  Who 123  17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Problematic passage
Someone added this after "if in doubt, don't delete":


 * Of course, if you are in doubt that doesn't imply that everyone else is also in doubt. If controversy exists on an article, please discuss at WP:VFU to reach consensus, rather than edit warring between deleted and restored status.

This doesn't seem to make sense. If the article is not deleted and you're deciding whether to delete it, I can't see how you'd get into this situation by acting on your doubt and failing to delete. The text seems to me to belong in the undeletion policy (where in fact I believe there is a passage saying you take borderline cases to VFU). I also have problems with policy descriptions that elide difference between undeletion and editing. --Tony Sidaway Talk 12:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be better worded. But some people have recently been using "if in doubt, don't delete" as an argument for undeletion. This seems akin to reasoning that "if somebody is in doubt, then nobody may delete", which is a fallacy. It is reasonable to assume that if something was deleted, then the responsible admin was not in doubt about that. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"If in doubt, don't delete" is a de facto argument for undeletion. It is indeed akin to saying "if somebody is in doubt, then nobody may delete", or at the very least, "if somebody is in doubt, he may undelete it and take it to AfD to resolve the doubt." You say this is a fallacy, but saying it is doesn't make it one.
 * No, it is indeed a fallacy. "somebody is in doubt, then nobody may delete" would imply that a single keep-vote would be sufficient to counter any deletion proposal. Policy and consensus dicate otherwise. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You say "it is reasonable to assume that if something was deleted, then the responsible admin was not in doubt about that." But administrators are not god-kings; their actions can always be reversed by another admin. If two admins disagree on a speedy, then perforce there is doubt. Such doubts can be resolved by the normal processes of discussion that take place in AfD. We've done this many times in the past, it works well. --Tony Sidaway Talk 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely because admins are not god-kings, if two of them disagree, the proper thing to do is talk it out, not act unilaterally. Otherwise, we get ugly deletion wars such as this one. It is not true that "We've done this many times in the past, it works well" - the fact is that you have done this several times in the past, a large amount of people expressed disagreement with you, and you ignored their comments. Controversy between sysops is traditionally resolved through discussion (e.g. VFU), not shouting matches. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. Unilateral undeletion of out-of-process deletion is part of the undeletion policy and was part of the undeletion policy before I started editing here. That some people are ignorant of its existence or don't agree with it is immaterial. The policy exists and is practised on Wikipedia. Moreover the undeletion policy mandates that AfD should be the place to resolve such matters. I have ensured that this policy is followed in every single case where an undeletion was unchallenged; contrary to your suggestion, I've had overwhelming success with this. Articles wrongly deleted are successfully undeleted by dint of this policy, which in the absence of an effective VFU that acts within the undeletion policy, is often the only way of getting things done. --Tony Sidaway Talk 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I never claimed you did not have "success" with your unilateral undeletions. I claimed that "a large amount of people expressed disagreement with you, and you ignored their comments". The key here is the term "out-of-process". You are not the sole judge of what is in or out of process. You have been known to unilaterally undelete something that passed an apparently valid AFD, for instance, and that is inappropriate. The very least you could do if you consider a deletion improper, is contact the admin who deleted it and discuss it however briefly. The consensual VFU wording does allow for that as an alternative, and undeletion policy has stated for a long time that "the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion".
 * In short - what's the rush? If you wish to undelete something, why not drop a note on the relevant admin's page asking if they object to its undeletion? I do believe you to be an eventualist, so waiting two or three days before doing the actual undeleting is not going to harm anyone. And if discussion about it is already underway on VFU, it will be resolved quickly, and VFU works a lot better than you seem to think it does. If people disagree with you, talk it out for a few days; if you are right, discussion tends to show that. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about Notability and Current Policy
Currently entries are being deleted because they aren't deemed notable (e.g. AFD: Apollo 9 (webcomic), AFD: Bored and Evil, AFD:Buddies in Big Places). I haven't been able to find anywhere that says accepted Wikipedia policy that says non-notable pages should be deleted (the only time I could even find the word notable was talking about future events). There is a proposal at Notability proposal but I'm under the impression that until that is accepted as Wikipedia policy, it shouldn't be used when voting on AFDs. So is non-notability currently a valid reason for deleting articles?--John Lynch 09:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As you can see at Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal this is a pretty controversial area. At the moment there is no explicit notability criteria, however there are also no rules limiting what reasons someone can give for AfDing something. - SimonP 14:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This question comes up often. Please see this same question (and the detailed responses) here.  The short version is that on Wikipedia, we have found that "notable" is a generally efficient proxy for functionally verifiable.  Non-verifiability is an accepted reason for deletion from the encyclopedia.  By extension, non-notability may (in many but not necessarily all cases) be a legitimate reason for deletion.  Rossami (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it, but I still don't see how notability can be seen as related to verification. Either something can be verified, or it can't. If it can't be verified at all, then it should be deleted. Notability doesn't need to come into it at all. I looked at the discussion you linked to (and saw your same argument) and I didn't see anything convincing, I also didn't see a consensus to the discussion. If people mean Verifiability when they say notability, then they should say what they mean, so it can be addressed. --John Lynch 07:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But I've yet to see an article deleted for any reason except it violates Wikipedia policy and it's non-notable. People follow Wikipedia policy when creating an article, how are they suppose to know what can be created, if people can delete stuff for whatever reason they want?--John Lynch 07:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * One reason is that "verifiability" on Wikipedia only counts if the subject is verified from a reasonable secondary source (and there is no strict definition of that). For instance, while the existence of my personal webpage can easily be verified by surfing there, it's content cannot be verified except from any place else. So when people say Verifiable they may not actually mean what's in the dictionary. Also, some things are not encyclopedic despite of verifiability - read WP:BIO, WP:VAIN and WP:NUM for details.
 * I've calmed down a bit, so I've come to discuss the point you raised. So when people say Verifiable they may not actually mean what's in the dictionary. Do they mean what's on the official Wikipedia guideline WP:Verifiability page? Also, the other articles you brought up are good, but don't have anything to do with notability. I don't mind people deleting things for the reasons outlined in those guidelines you linked to. I do, however, mind when notability is used.--John Lynch 05:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * At any rate, people don't delete stuff for whatever reason they want (non-admins can't delete stuff period, admins can, but are supposed to use common sense). People nominate stuff for whatever reason they want, but if it's a silly reason (like the last time someone nominated Israel because he disagreed with its government) then the stuff doesn't get deleted. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So why is a reason, that isn't in the guidelines, seen as a valid reason?--John Lynch 05:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the very definition of "guidelines"? That it is not restricted to those provided? -  Tεx  τ  urε  18:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But the guidelines I was talking about, were the guidelines to MAKE an article. I really don't see how you can expect people to be happy with deleting articles that don't break Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Okay, this is a tricky matter. The first point is that Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, and many guideline pages are running somewhat behind on that, partly because there's way too many of them. The main point is that most people have a general idea of what they consider suitable material for an encyclopedia. There is a bar somewhere, only its location is subjective. People give various reasons and names to this bar, including but not limited to notability, verifiability, importance and interest (and sometimes, suitability to the general public).
 * It is really impossible to describe the bar without waxing subjective. However, has been established that Wikipedia shall not contain articles about every person or every webpage on this planet. People have a tendency to write about little-known things that they are themselves familiar with. That is fine as long as it is plausibly also of interest to somebody else. However, such topics may also include their friends, their website, their band, a story they wrote, or a word their classmate made up. And such topics may end up deleted.
 * A possible question to ask would be, 'how many people in the world would care about that?' if you take it as a literal question rather than rhetoric. Hollywood celebs? Obviously. Nobel laureates? Yes, the entire scientific community. Pokemon? Surprisingly, millions of fans (and millions more who hate them, but that wasn't the point). Ludicrous internet memes such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Again, surprisingly, tens of thousands of people. Your dog? Er, maybe a dozen people nearby you? A website you like? Consider how many sites you know and how much traffic they all get. Check and compare, and consider that there's literally billions of sites and most are interchangeable.
 * I'm afraid it's hard to describe it any better than that as it's really a sliding scale, but some issues are simply off the bar for the consensus. Wikipedia does not work by rules or guidelines, it works by consensus. And consensus has the opinion that a webcomic must have some amount of traffic and recognition before we would write about it. By any other name.
 * Hope that helps, and feel free to ask questions or comments etc. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 01:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Very odd addendum to "If in doubt, don't delete"
I noticed this recent addendum to "If in doubt, don't delete."


 * Of course, if you are in doubt that doesn't imply that everyone else is also in doubt. If controversy exists on an article, please discuss at WP:VFU to reach consensus, rather than edit warring between deleted and restored status.

This is wrong on several points. Firstly the forum for discussion of deletion is WP:AFD, not WP:VFU. Secondly, undeletion policy provides for unilateral undeletion of clearly out-of-process deletions, and again WP:AFD is the forum to which AFD candidates that were wrongly speedied should be taken. Thirdly a false identificaiton is made between undeletion of wrongful speedy deletions and edit warring. This is unhelpful and misleading. We certainly must used AFD to arrive at consensus, on that I agree, but in order to do so it may be necessary to undelete the article whenever it is wrongly deleted. Taken as a whole, that addendum seems to have been written by someone who is unaware of the deletion policy, the undeletion policy, and the established procedures for dealing with out-of-process deletions. I have removed the incorrect and misleading section. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Before jumping to conclusions, you should read up on the talk page discussion that has been held on WP:DRV (formerly WP:VFU) over the past month and a half. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Out of process" is a judgment call. Clearly someone thought it was in process, or they would not have performed it.  History has shown that pointless wheel wars will result from unilateral action. *cough* system wars *cough*  A more measured response is to use the avenues that exist for discussing with fellow wikipedians the nature of the deletion, and deciding on a course of action.  The avenue for deletion is AfD, the avenue for restoration is DRV.  I have replaced a tighter version of the highly relevent section.  brenneman (t) (c)  23:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

History shows that "pointless wheel wars" are quickly curbed by listing on AfD as the undeletion policy specifies. I've been through this many times myself an AfD always quells the war and settles the matter. I've changed the wording to refer to the undeletion policy. Also the reference to wheel wars smells of [WP:BEANS]] so definitely not a good idea. The idea is to stop people warring about their disputed speedies by taking them to AfD, and it works. It is of course categorically wrong to describe DRV as "the (sole) avenue for restoration". Check the undeletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My fix was reverted on the puzzling basis that it supposedly was an attempt to "airbrush" DRV. Well it goes without saying that the section reverted was a faithful representation of the undeletion policy.


 * To attempt to remove all cause for complaint, I've changed it to:


 * If controversy exists on an article's deletion status, undelete and list on Articles for deletion as specified by the undeletion policy. Discussion on WP:DRV is another way to reach consensus, but this can be deferred to the rare event that the deletion debate is disputed.


 * This places DRV in its proper context: after a disputed speedy is taken to AFD and then the result is disputed. We absolutely do not need to bicker about bad speedies on DRV or engage in wheel wars when there is a forum available for discussion of borderline deletion cases. That forum is and has always been AFD.    Where administrators have a good faith disagreement over whether an article is speediable, there is a de facto doubt over deletion, and this policy applies, and no attempt to sugar coat it is acceptable.  AFD is for discussion of deletions.   --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really read the rest of that paragraph as dealing with speedies specifically, so much as deletion in general. I don't think we should be saying "undelete if anyone disputes any deletion", and for disputing deletion we have DRV. If the paragraph is intended only to deal with speedies, I'd have much less problem with your phrasing. -Splash talk 23:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It now says:
 * When restoration was impossible admins were directed, "If in doubt, don't delete!" Now however, deleted pages can be restored if there is support on Wikipedia:Deletion review or if the page was deleted out of process. See undeletion policy for information on undeletion.
 * This is accurate, and what's the point in saying "go ahead and restore it"? Did we forget that this is a policy page, not an admin how-to? -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that is even remotely close to the current state of affairs. "If in doubt, don't delete" is far more relevant now than it was before speedy deletion was adopted. You ask what's the point in saying "go ahead and restore it?" Well obviously the point is to tell people to stop dicking around on DRV, go ahead and restore it, and if necessary list on AfD. Just as the undeletion policy says. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, it now says, "Particularly now, administrators are always reminded: "If in doubt, don't delete." Should I put on the end "...by Tony Sidaway"?  Attempts like this to pervert policy are exactly why I oppose inclusion of IIDDD in this page.  brenneman (t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing. You attempt to remove a key bit of policy from the deletion policy, and you falsely accuse an administrator, who uses that key bit of policy, of perverting policy. Please reconsider, you've been told many times by other administrators who have been around far longer than I have, that you don't get to remove "if in doubt, don't delete." It's possibly the most important part of deletion policy. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not to hinder its creation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, an encyclopedia. You know, that thing that is somewhat smaller than that which it represents?Editing includes both addition of information and refining of that into a more usable form.  I attempted to "clarify" that IIDDD was a historic phrase.    IIDDD is also "possibly" an anachronistic hold-over from a previous era used as a club to beat those whose philosophy doesn't match yours.  Please do review the discussions, I recall it somewhat differently. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a wiki. You've been here a few months now and had time to absorb that fact. If I run into an article that talks about a school, and I can verify the school but it's a nursery adjunct (albeit state registered) to another school, I'll redirect to the article about the school. This is how wikis work. How would deleting the article altogether be better? Someone who wanted to look up the school by the name of the deleted article would find nothing. By this method--involving deletion only when there really is nothing worth knowing about, we create an encyclopedia.

You claim that "If in doubt, don't delete" is anachronistic, yet it's very much a live issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It sure is and a month and a half of debate on a single talk page can't change that. I don't think a key policy becomes anachronistic when something is so narrowly debated. Rx StrangeLove 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Standardizing second, third, AfD headers?
Can we come up with some sort of policy for standardizing what the AfD title should be when an article is nominated for a second or later time? Suppose I have a sizable watchlist, but I think there's reason to think someone may try to delete a particular article; I can put a link to what an AfD for that article should be titled on a page in my userspace and then just check that page, and if any link has turned blue then I know to investigate.

However, what happens if it survives that AfD and someone starts another? The new AfD might be called "Articles for Deletion/Foo/2"; "Articles for Deletion/Foo 2"; "Articles for Deletion/Foo (2nd nomination)" or other variants. Even as the first AfD has proved that yes, someone out there thinks it should be deleted and might initiate the process, the lack of any standard naming convention for subsequent AfDs makes it harder to look out for them.

I would propose the +"/2" syntax be the standard; it's easiest to extrapolate (and type) the next in the series and we don't have to worry that there might be a collision between "Articles for Deletion/Foo 2" (a 2nd AfD for the article "Foo") and "Articles for Deletion/Foo 2" (an AfD for the article "Foo 2"). Comments, thoughts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Somehow, pre-emptively watching for potential future deletion nominations just seems ... I'm not sure what word I'm looking for but it doesn't seem right. If you're that interested in the article, aren't you already watchlisting the article itself?  And wouldn't you therefore see the afd tag when it's added?  I'm not sure I understand yet why you need to watch for the deletion discussion.  Rossami (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The syntax above would create an extra level of sub-page, which I think is undesareable. I recently added a suggestion to the AFD footer to use AfDx in thsi case, which will help with standardization to some extent. Besides i agree with User:Rossami on this. DES (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but many of us have watchlists a thousand articles or more long. A watchlist will tell you that some change was made to the article.  It won't tell you, unless the AfD notice was the most recent of the changes made (and if the person who placed the AfD notice didn't, ah, "forget" to use the appropriate subject line) that the article is now on AfD.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The last thing we want to do is to encourage this kind of obsession. I've removed the silly thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be strongly opposed to mentioning the template. I don't see that it's harmful and it might even be helpful.  We all know you don't think things should be deleted, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  But, you should remember that not everyone agrees with you.  Sometimes things get Afd'd twice for legitimate reasons, so where's the problem?  Friday (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You say We all know you don't think things should be deleted. Well obviously you don't, because I do think things should be deleted, where their deletion is supported by the deletion policy. Moreover I don't see why my opinion on this matter matters here.

What I object to here is a pointless bit of nitpicking over whether an article has been listed for the first time, the second time, or whatever. How about a third AfD template, a fourth AfD template?

It's all way too obsessive. If you're worried about an article being deleted (or not deleted) for a second time, pay a bit of attention to that article. it's harmful because it feeds the obsession. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging and redirecting
I've added this to the intro. It's a pivotal point of deletion policy and deserves far more prominence.


 * Many problems that people are tempted to solve by deletion can actually be solved by any editor simply by proper use of normal editing powers. In particular, articles about inconsequential or obscure branches of a subject may be merged with a more substantial article on the subject, or simply redirected if the content is too small. The advantage of this approach over deletion is that it expands the scope of the encyclopedia.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's already in the (admittedly gigantic) table already, but ok. -Splash talk 23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it, since people very frequently Afd things that could be redirected or otherwise taken care of. To me, it's worth a bit of repetition to try to drive home the point. Friday (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just put a big sign, "Hey never delete anything!" Is there some compelling reason that we need editorialising of this nature in the lead of deletion policy? -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Further, I'm and AfD regular and I don't see that many nominations of this sort. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is editorialising, and no, I don't think we need that paragraph, except for the first sentence. It plainly chooses to raise one part of the policy to prominence above others. I, for isntance, and much more concerned about the slack verifiability standards enforced on AfD and would like to see that emphasised more. But I'd be letting my personal preferences creep in, so I won't. -Splash talk 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Would but that all involved were so circumspect. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  23:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (multiple ec) Hmmm, you do have a point there. I see things that are speediable and things that should just be redirected quite a bit.  I'd like to make it clear to editors that Afd isn't always the best thing to with a junk article, but as you rightly point out, that may be editorializing.   Friday (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we shouldn't delete anything unless we're sure it should be deleted. That's what our deletion policy is about. On Aaron's comment about AfD, I'd remind him that hundreds of school articles have been nominated for deletion over the past year, and a tiny proportion have been deleted. There just isn't a consensus for deletion of those articles. If the people who listed those articles for deletion had either edited them to make them more consequential, or redirected them to an article on, say, the school district, there would have been a lot less sound and fury, and the result would have been pretty much the same. Deletion is a sledgehammer, to be used when an article is irretrievably biased, a personal attack, unverifiable, or composed solely of copyright infringements. There probably is no reason to use deletion in any other circumstances. We probably made a big mistake in not spelling this out in the early days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 *   And I think that we "probably" made a big mistake in not killing the first school article, putting it's head on a spike, and sending it's entrails out to warn off other of its kind.   However, I'd imagine that policy should be about more than what _I_ want. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your belief that deletion should be used as a deterrent to editors wishing to provide share similar information with users. Kappa 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Whole lotta revertin' goin' on
Based on recent edits, it sure looks like it'd be a good idea for people to get consensus on the talk page before making changes here. Friday (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But then we might have to do something useful. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the body was still AfD specific, and internally inconsistant. Changed that. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  01:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If in doubt, don't delete again
I see little plausible justification for the implication that this is some sort of historical note. Please explain this change in particular. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do familiarise yourself with the talk pages of those meta-discussions that you intend to edit. If you'll see above, and in particular the notes pointed to here.  It had been archived, so I'll reproduce the relevent section in full here. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review
There is currently some controversy about the meaning and relevance of this phrase, and its suitability for inclusion on WP:DRV and WP:DEL. The controversy has manifested as an edit war on those pages (see for example, , , , , ), and a short block on two editors. I believe it might be helpful, in efforts to resolve the dispute, to look at the phrase's history and intent.

History
Tony Sidaway, SimonP and others are correct when they say that the phrase has been with WP for a long time. Its earliest use that I know of was in the document that eventually became WP:DEL. The original page can still be seen; it dates from February 25 2002, but was actually written in November 2001 in the old software.

That page was an instruction to administrators. In the old UseModWiki software, page deletions were qualitatively different from page deletions in our current system: once a page was deleted, it was completely removed, such that it was "impossible to restore from within the system." The present day equivalent is removal of the page history from the database by a developer.

This permanent quality of deletions made it imperative that any deletion decision was made with particular care—there was no such thing as "undeletion" at the time. The rules were a reminder to anyone about to delete a page what was generally expected of them; to wit, these were "some rules that those tasked with permanently deleting pages can generally be expected to follow in making the decision to delete or not."

On September 20 2003, more than two years ago, old time user Cimon avaro moved the instructions to a very appropriate, newly created page, Deletion guidelines for administrators. You can see the original here.

Meaning & intent
The above history makes the meaning of the phrase in question crystal clear. It is an instruction to administrators (ie. to people who can delete pages) to be careful when commiting that final act, and to desist if they cannot make up their minds about whether they should delete a page. The phrase is an axiom for individual administrators to bear in mind when they make their delete decisions. The Deletion guidelines for administrators also provides other helpful tips to administrators. For example:
 * Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
 * As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.

These are all sensible rules of thumb for administrators to keep in mind as they consider their closes; "if in doubt, don't delete" is one among them.

(Mis)use
I have noticed that this phrase appears to be often misused these days. The clearest misuse happens when someone uses it to proclaim that another admin's close was invalid, because it was closed at a rough consensus standard that they believe to be unacceptable. This is often expressed with something like: "You should not have deleted that page. It was too close; two-thirds isn't a consensus. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'"

This is the sort of thing that makes you go "Whaa—?". It's a misunderstanding of the axiom. IIDDD is not intended to call into question deletion decisions made in perfect accordance with the criteria in WP:DEL and WP:CON by an administrator who had no doubts as to the validity of the closure.

Another misuse of the axiom is the idea contained in the following: "You should not have deleted it because there was doubt. The very fact that I'm disagreeing with you proves that there is doubt. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'" This is incorrect, for what should be very obvious reasons.

Tony Sidaway has recently made several edits to the VFU header page, in which he characterizes IIDDD in an interesting way. He writes,


 * Deletion can be challenged [in DR] under two policies:
 * Deletion policy the chief precept of which is "if in doubt, don't delete"

and
 * This page operates within two policies, both of which deliberately adopt a very permissive approach to Wikipedia articles:
 * deletion policy, if in doubt, don't delete.

It is unclear to me how an instruction to administrators to be careful when performing deletions became "the chief precept" of WP:DEL. The deletion policy is a document that specifies what things within WP may be removed. Where the main namespace is concerned¹, what may be removed are
 * pages which conflict two of the article policy trifecta (ie. WP:V and WP:NOR),
 * pages on or containing a number of things deemed unencyclopedic by long-standing tradition, which are noted in WP:NOT, and
 * pages contravening WP:Copyrights.

These are the bases of article space policy and the fountainhead of deletion policy—they are what the deletion policy was written to enforce.

The axiom IIDDD on the other hand is merely a simple reminder to admins who're on the job not to be trigger happy. It is most certainly not "the chief precept" of deletion policy, just as "don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" is not the chief precept of deletion policy, nor any other of those little, if helpful, reminders given to admins who're working on deletions. The idea that IIDDD makes WP permissive is also misleading, I believe. It neither makes it more permissive nor less. What goes and stays on WP is determined by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. All else are secondary, and all else are derivations. In this editor's humble opinion, at any rate.

Perhaps the intent is to emphasize the open nature of the wiki. This is a fair point, but:
 * 1) if so, that point should be properly expressed. This phrase does not express that idea, despite many people apparently believing it does. It simply cannot: its very construction shows that.
 * 2) the openess of the wiki is subservient to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. As I said earlier, these foundational principles form the basis of the deletion policy, and together with WP:NPOV they dictate what is and is not allowable in the mainspace.

Where should IIDDD be placed?
This brings us to the question that started all this. Should "if in doubt, don't delete" be placed in WP:DEL and WP:DRV? This seems to be the source of much dispute, but that is only because IIDDD is misunderstood. Personally I will not strongly object with listing the admin reminders on the deletion page, because I know what they are and what they were written to for, and putting them there will not make me treat the article-space policy any less seriously. However, I do see the point that they're out-of-place. WP:DEL is primarily written for users and editors of the encyclopedia, not sysops. Placing IIDDD in such a page, in the way it has been placed there now, does sound odd—because non-sysops can't delete, whether they are in doubt or not. IIDDD is directed at sysops, the folks who do the deleting. The correct place for it is Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it fits perfectly and where it has been placed since the inception of that page. (Yes, it was also in the page that eventually became WP:DEL, but that was when that page was in fact directed at admins. You can read it here.)

What about WP:DRV? The same applies. Wherever the thing is placed however, I would ask that it is not misrepresented, or written in a way that gives a misleading account of article space and deletion policy on Wikipedia. If I've been wrong in any of the above, do correct me—it will not be the first time, nor the last :) I do believe that this issue needn't divide us as it has. Kind regards enceph  alon  20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Note
 * ¹ There is one more class of item that can be deleted from the mainspace and which is not covered in the above policies, and that is the "useless redirect," normally deleted via WP:RFD. I have left it out from the above for simplicity. enceph  alon  20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Encephalon's comments on "If in doubt, don't delete"
Encephalon is right to state that the principle was first found in the earliest versions of WP:DEL; he even admits that it survived the transition to the new software. The rest of his piece appears to be an attempt to explain this away by claiming that the reason for not deleting an article about which some doubt existed had to do with older software.

Let's assume that part of the original reason was that the software would completely lose all content that was deleted. Does this then justify abandoning the principle? In other words, are the occasions when, if doubt exists over whether a piece should be deleted, we should delete it anyway?

Encephalon appeals to Verifiability. Unverifiable statements of fact must be removed from articles, and completely unverifiable articles must be deleted, of that there is no doubt.

Encephalon appeals to copyright. Copyright infringements are deleted under the copyright policy, which as a Key policy overrides the deletion policy and all others. We delete copyright infringements.

Encephalon appeals to No original research. Original research is removed from articles, and articles based solely on original research are deleted.

Encephalon appeals to What Wikipedia is not. This document is sometimes persuasive in deletion debates and is given in the deletion policy as an umbrella for a host of reasons for deletion.

Deletion policy is permissive, I think we can all agree on that. If an article doesn't fall under those principles then we don't delete it.

There are gray areas. "If in doubt, don't delete" informs our conduct in deciding whether to delete. The question of whether there is a consensus really boils down to whether the closing administrator is convinced by the deletion debate. If there is significant reasoned opposition then there isn't a consensus--if in doubt, etc.

Nowadays we permit administrators to delete some classes of article summarily, and well over 1,000 such deletions are carried out every day. But there are safeguards on this, as it's a very controversial. An administrator can undelete an obvious "out of process" speedy deletion, and if it's still a deletion candidate under the deletion policy it should be listed on AfD. If in doubt, don't delete, again.

If an administrator disagrees over an undeletion, what's to be done? AfD, obviously. If in doubt, don't delete. Why would an administrator want to delete an article that another administrator, in good faith, has undeleted? If in doubt, don't delete. List it on AfD, or Copyright problems.

The principle is simply stated and informs every aspect of our undeletion policy and our deletion policy. That is why it belongs here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read your response several times, and yet to me it still appears that your argument is mostly based upon, "because I say so". I see that his analysis provides diffs and links to back up most of his arguments, and that yours does not.  Is this as good as it gets in defense of IIDDD?  Specifics, then:
 * Are you disputing that the original intent of the phrase was as an instruction to admins?
 * Are you further disputing that the scope and purpose, as well as the technical implementation, of the entire deletion process has changed considerably since this/that page was first written?
 * brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, I think that your reliance on trying to discern the original intent of the language, with the implication that if the original need no longer exists then the language should be tossed out, completely ignores the fact that a very large portion of the community seems to believe in the principle itself. The United States has certainly changed immensely in the 200+ years since 1787 when the Constitution was drafted and many of the factors that gave rise to certain provisions, the Bill of Rights in particular, are arguably no longer present. However, people continue to believe in the principles themselves. Without tagging editors as "inclusionist" or "deletionist", there certainly exists a broad range of opinion on this issue, but in my experience a very substantial number believe that IIDDD is a basic tenet of Wikipedia, whether or not one of the historical reasons for creating the policy has changed. -- DS1953 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I'd counter that by saying that the reason that "a large number" of people believe that IIDDD is a basic tenet of Wikipedia is because there exist a "small number" of people who proselytize to that effect.  It is, as has been pointed out several times, only one part of a complex web of competing suggestions.  To suggest that it is the be-all and end-all of deletion policy is at best reductionist and at worst deliberately misleading. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  07:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You apparently honestly believe that the reason that people believe IIDDD is because of proselytizing; I believe it is simply organic and has very little to do with the fact that a few well known editors repeat it in their arguments. I see it too often from new editors on AfD to think that they are being swayed so easily when there are many other editors who vehemently argue that the sanctity of the project demands deeper cuts.  Obviously, neither of us really knows, so you will labor under your belief and I under mine.  Furthermore, my statement that many users believe it to be a basic tenet of Wikipedia is far from asserting "that it is the be-all and end-all of deletion policy".  I believe that most of the dreck that makes it way to AfD should be deleted.  My point is only that if a significant number of users want to keep an article, whether it be on some arcane mathematics concept that only a PhD in math would have heard of or an episode of Seinfeld, I believe most users favor keeping the article.  It doesn't negate all other deletion policies, it only affects the degree of "consensus" necessary to delete.  Furthermore, it is only shorthand for the underlying principle.  If there are twenty editors urging deletion and two firm believers who want to keep an article, there is certainly some level of "doubt", but I don't think even the most strict constructionist of the language would believe that every scintilla of doubt means that the article should be kept in the face of overwhelming opposition. -- DS1953 07:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if there is a "small number", of these proselytisers, they must be somewhat persuasive individuals, for the acceptance of this principle is indeed pervasive!

However I think I've given a good account above, showing how "if in doubt, don't delete" dovetails well with practically every aspect of deletion policy, providing a solid, workable way out of gray areas (if there's a dispute, seek consensus to delete using the forums set up for the purpose). It's hardly reductionist to point out how all-pervasive and, damn it, how useful the concept is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidence like Articles for deletion/Ceraphite, Articles for deletion/Serbian Greek Empire, Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_day_dictators or the disaster recorded on Talk:Authentic Matthew show that people ought to be reminded of core policies WP:V and WP:NPOV first. These are useful principles in encyclopedia-making. The pithy slogan IIDDD is a slogan to begin with, a battle-cry. Pilatus 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Database organisation
I think that removing "if in doubt, don't delete" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how mediawiki databases are organised. We still need to be conservative when deleting. Please check with a developer if you haven't already done so!

Of course, if it turns out that the engine has improved and I'm wrong ... the consequences would be ... interesting. :-) Kim Bruning 03:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Even if the archive weren't a separate table, deletion still would involve preventing non-administrators from seeing and editing articles. We would still need to be conservative. We shouldn't be deleting anything we're not sure needs deleting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, so it still is a separate table that gets randomly purged, and doesn't get backed up? Kim Bruning 07:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is that "Two versions" template when you need it?
Just putting things side by side. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  06:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Current version
 * <font font color = #BB0000>My proposed revisions.

In the normal operations of Wikipedia, over one thousand articles are deleted each day. While it is possible for any user to blank a page, the original content will still be available in the page history for others to view and restore if they wish. When pages are deleted, this removes not only the current version but also all previous versions from view. Only administrators have the ability to delete and undelete pages, and this is limited to those pages that are kept in the archive. Some older deleted pages are completely inaccessible.
 * <font font color = #BB0000>While it is possible for any user to blank a page, the original content will still be available in the page history for others to view and restore if they wish. When pages are deleted, this removes not only the current version but also all previous versions from view. Only administrators have the ability to delete and undelete pages, and this is limited to those pages that are kept in the archive. Some older deleted pages are completely inaccessible.

Deleted pages can be restored if they've obviously been deleted out of process, or if there is support on Deletion review. See undeletion policy for information on undeletion, but the onus is on the administrator never to delete an article without good reason.
 * <font font color = #BB0000>When restoration was impossible admins were directed, "If in doubt, don't delete!"  Now however, deleted pages can be restored if there is support on Deletion review or if the page was deleted out of process.  See undeletion policy for information on undeletion.

If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted. In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.
 * <font font color = #BB0000>If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted. In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive.

Many problems that people are tempted to solve by deletion can actually be solved by any editor simply by proper use of normal editing powers. In particular, articles about inconsequential or obscure branches of a subject may be merged with a more substantial article on the subject, or simply redirected if the content is too small. The advantage of this approach over deletion is that it expands the scope of the encyclopedia.

Since deletion cannot be undone by non-administrators, and it is often disheartening for new, good-faith users to see their work sumarily deleted, it is important to use deletion powers sparingly.
 * <font font color = #BB0000>This is totally new material.

Commentary
So, for all practicle concerns, we've got ArbCom material over the addition of the words "When restoration was impossible," and "Now however". Please do let the record show that this dust up began when Tony attempted to subvert consensus. Oh, and can we all see that several new caveats have crept into the deletion policy's lead paragraph, as well as "If in doubt don't delete" now being boldface? brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 06:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dangerous policy change
(See for context)

People need to come back from nasa-shuttle-disasters-can't-happen/let's-cut-down-the-last-tree-on-easter-island type lala land right now. There has been no back-end change to how deletion has been handled, as far as I'm aware. No matter how strong you feel consensus is or how large a supermajority you get; reality will not change. If you are unsure, but still delete, there are odds that actual valuable data will be lost forever.

If this information has been superseded, please inform me, as that would have several interesting consequences. Kim Bruning 07:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not articles can be restored, the statement "if in doubt don't delete" should remain, since it cautions an admin that they are expected to justify their decision to delete. I don't agree with any of Aaron's amendments, which seem to be based upon a point of view regarding the framing of the policy. I also support the extra text at the end, there should be exploration of other options besides deletion. Hiding talk 13:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All of the options are in the table slightly further down. It is uneven to promote one particular part of that table above the others. -Splash talk 13:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's academic anyway. Anon's can't now create new articles  so remove what Aaron identifies as new material in the above but retain the rest. Hiding  talk 14:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm fine with the removal, but for the time being at least, anons can still write new articles. I just checked myself. -Splash talk 14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's being turned off today. Jimbo posted an announcement to the mailing list less than an hour ago.  I don't know that it has showed up on Wikipedia yet, I'm not sure where or even if the information has been placed on Wikipedia. Hiding  talk 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here Hiding  talk 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Splash talk 15:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion request
Would someone please delete Beauxbaton Academy? It is fictional. I am brand new, have no idea how to do this, and figure that this will get it done fairly quickly. Sorry to dump it in here-- please delete this entry when you fix Beauxbaton. 216.185.84.246 03:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Please refer to the Guide to deletion to learn how the process works.  Rossami (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for minor reorganization
Now that the wording of the policy has at least temporarily been settled, I have a purely organizational change to propose. The subsection now numbered 1.1 "What to do with a problem page/image/category" appears under the section heading "Procedure for deletion". I would propose putting that as its own section, followed by the section "Procedure for deletion" and all of the other subsections, except that I would also move the "See also" subsection to its own section as the more typical style. As it stands, subsection 1.1 does not seem to fit under the "Procedure" banner. I think that the change would make the policy easier to use for someone looking for guidance. -- DS1953 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion surprise
There are so many deletion pages and talk pages that I'm not sure where to post this. The speedy delete pages mention tags but often new pages disappear a few minutes or less than a minute after being created. Even for a seasoned user like myself this is very confusing. Nothing on my watchlist. A little tiny link saying the page may have been deleted. I don't want to spend my time looking at delete logs for bad speedy deletes. Many speedy deletes could be handled by a tag (and maybe deletion of one version of the article.) I've rewritten advertising articles to real NPOV articles about a company. If the original bad version had not been there the article would never have been written. Unless there is something that needs to be removed for legal reasons then all deletions should go through a process. There should always be a tag that shows up on watch lists. The process of speedy delete deletes the evidence of any problems with speedy and those most likely to be victims of a bad deletion are those least likely to know how to work their way through or have the time to mess with wikipolicy. --Gbleem 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction to Deletion Policy
I am not very happy with the introductory paragraphs of the deletion policy. Like any other thing done on Wikipedia, the purpose of the deletion policy is to build an encyclopedia. At the very least, the core policies should be mentioned. At the moment, the introduction mostly cautions against deletion; it could to with a heavy dose of WP:NPOV. Pilatus 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good point. However, since this is a wiki, sofixit! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 03:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

New deletion policy proposal
I've written a new policy proposal advocating specific time limits between successive AFD nominations for the same article. Please read it if you have time, and comment. Firebug 03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted speedy tags
If the creator of a page repeatedly deleted the speedy delete tags, what is the correct way to respond? In the past, I have listed in as a Quetioned delete on Speedy deletions, or it's become an AfD. If it's a clear speedy candidate, should I ask a random administrator, or stick with Speedy deletions? Or could someone point me to the guideline for this scenario if one exists please? Thanks. --Whouk (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, I've speedied the article. In general, this policy page is not the best place to ask. It depends on what is the case, really. If the article is crappy, POV or unsourced, tell the author how to fix it. If the subject is desperately NN, notify your friendly neighborhood admin on Speedy Deletions. If someone keeps reverting the tag without responding to what you say, inform them of the 3RR. If you two get into discussion and disagree, take it to AFD. Hope that about covers it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have exactly the opposite question. What if a user places a speedy deletion tag on an article as a way of vandalism? What should be done then (besides listing if on Questioned speedy deletions)? This was done to WP:NJ and WikiProject Ice Hockey. AndyZ 23:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just reread the deletion tag description, and removed the deletion tags myself. AndyZ 23:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) This sort of thing can be reported at WP:VIP or WP:AIV or WP:ANI, or just discussed on the talk page of the article in question. if a spedy tag is clearly inappropriate, any editor, aprticuarly any editor other than the creator or recent major editor of an article can remove a speedy tag, IMO. DES (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

One line summary
There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. If the summary is inaccurate, please improve it rather than removing the template. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not right because we are always willing to revisit a deletion in the light of new information. There does not, I think, exist a one line summary of a subtle and nuanced policy. The template should be removed. (And I don't understand the point of it anyway.)-Splash talk 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And I removed it until something is worked out: this is an official policy page, that's an inaccurate statement of the policy and it shouldn't appear here until it is accurateified. Discuss it here on talk first. -Splash talk 17:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Stevage starts with the premise "There being a need for concise one line summaries...". I question that premise.  I do not see a need for a one line summary.  The only possible summary which is that concise is already on the page - the page title.  The next layer of detail is the introductory paragraph.  Our introductory paragraphs are not always perfectly written but creating an eye-blurring template with a redundant sentence adds nothing of obvious value to the page.  Rossami (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is correct that many guidelines and policies could use some cleaning of pointless, redundant and confusing lines. However, summarizing them all to a single line each is overreaching a bit, and is not going to meaningfully work for each policy page. In this particular case, your oneliner is wrong; one that would match existing practice is "if you feel an article to be unencyclopedic, you may nominate it on WP:AFD; if discussion there yields a consensus to delete the article, it may be deleted by an admin." Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion History
I regret to point out the Deletion Histories are now only available to Sysops. Anyone know why? -- Eddie 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Brion turned it off until there's a better way to deal with edit summary vandalism. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deleted history permissions. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus or Supermajority?
There is talk on Consensus concerning the statement that certain Wikiprocesses, in particular WP:RFA and WP:AFD, no longer work on the principle of Consensus, but instead on the principle of Supermajority, which seems to imply a more-or-less strict numerical limit. I would appreciate it if some AFD regulars would weigh in on the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Consensus to comment on this. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For your review: Notability (software)
Hello everyone! Please review the newly-proposed guideline Notability (software). Your thoughts are much appreciated. --Perfecto 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Redirect" option
This is a policy update proposal.

The policy must clearly distinguish the two very different cases of propasals to replace an voted article by #redirect.
 * One is "redirect" to an article with the same topic, and it is basically equivalent to "keep". An example would be a redirect of a nonnotable one-liner "pokemon" to "list of pokemon" (or something like that; I hope you got the idea). The idea is that the topic is valid, but not yet warrants a separate page.
 * Another is "redirect" to an article with basically different topic, which is basically equivalent to "delete" of the current topic. An example would be a replacement of a (possible) hoax Joe Doe article (55,000 google hits! need an article here ASAP! :-) with a redirect to John Doe (assuming that is a common variant or a typo, as in, eg. [)

The current rules "Deletion_process" say: "If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as REDIRECT or MERGE),...", i.e., fail to make this fundamental distinction.

I am posting it to discuss here because it is not a hypothetical issue: exactly this kind of confusion is happening with aladin article; see its talk and Afd. Mukadderat 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * People tend to specify the latter as "Delete and redirect" and the former as "merge". Guettarda 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Other people tend to confuse the issue and just write "redirect". What is more confusion, in the aladin's Afd people actually wrote "keep", bearing in mind to edit it "normally", turning into a redirect to something totally different. Like, if I turn Sulayman into a redirect to Suleiman the Magnificent (Allah forbid!), by their logic it is just a "normal" edit, while I say it is a clandestine and malicious deletion. Mukadderat 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your example is an excellent one because it highlights the confusion. Converting an article into a redirect is a normal edit because it can be reversed by any other reader/editor.  Reverting back to the non-redirect form requires no special admin powers.  The decision to turn it into a redirect is visible in the article's edit history and can be reviewed by anyone.  If it turns out to be a controversial decision, it gets discussed and decided on the respective talk pages. Deletion, on the other hand, destroys the page and the edit history.  Reversing a deletion does require admin powers.  The decision can not be easily reviewed by non-admins.  In that regard, deletion is special. That's why an unmodified "redirect" vote is generally interpreted as a "keep" vote.  Deletion means that the article is so bad that the page history must go.  Turning a good article into a redirect may be a bad idea - it may even be vandalism - but it is not a "deletion".  Rossami (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to miss my point: turning an article from one subject to a completely different one is a de-facto deletion. In the case of aladin there is no way to agree on a "NPOV" version, because the issue is inherently polarized: either apples or oranges. It is not the "discussion about content" (or to say it differently, everything in wikipedia is "discussion about content"), and saying that this kind of discussion must be at talk page is essentially sweeping the problem under the carpet. Why don't we vote for deletion in talk pages? Because we want a broader participation, so that the decision is not made by a clique who happen to frequent this page.
 * So I say if the whole topic is being deleted by whatever action, this is a matter of votes for deletion.
 * Also, my suggestion is to clarify the policy, so that people not throw ambiguous votes
 * Being not stupid, I know how I could circumvent the issue: by creating the aladin, the magician page. But which rules will forbid someone to turn it into a redirect to, say, "magician" (or even to "the") and start  a "content dispute"? Mukadderat 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Rossami's already heard my rant about this, but you may be interested in reading Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion, Mukadderat. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Three Types of Deletion
An idea I've been kicking around for a while... it's probably not original, but what the hey. This is not intended as a proposal (at this time), just a set of talking points.

Often times, in a deletion vote, one prefaces their vote with strong or weak--i.e. weak keep or strong delete. As far as I can tell, this only is used to indicate the editor's strength of opinion, and has little impact (if any) on how the vote is tallied.

However, it seems to me that there are three types of deletes. I'm giving them cute names here, but better names can be suggested. Unlike strong/weak/standard delete, policy might in the future treat these diffently when deciding how to dispose of a XfD.


 * Delete without prejudice: The article as it stands is wholly unencyclopedic and/or inappropriate, and unsalvageable; so little existing content is worth preserving that were one to do so, all that would be left is a stub.  However, the topic is encyclopedic; so the deletion action should not be construed as a barrier to creation of the article again in the future (with appropriate content).  Obviously, re-creating the article in it's current form isn't acceptable and may be speedy-deleted.  Examples:  Any article on any encyclopedic topic, whose content is crap.


 * Delete with prejudice: The topic of the article is currently unencyclopedic, but may become unencyclopedic in the future.  Re-creation of the article (without being speedied) requires adequate demonstration of why the topic is now appropriate, and/or a VFU.  Examples:  Articles on garage bands (the band might get a record deal in the future), highly speculative articles (which become appropriate as the event in question approaches), original research topics (which become appropriate if the research is published elsewhere and thus no longer in violation of WP:NOR).


 * Delete with extreme prejudice: The topic of the article is unencyclopedic, and likely to remain so for all time.  Re-creation of the article (without being speedied) definitely requires a VFU.  Examples:  Articles whose topic is blatantly POV or nonnsensical.

Note that this taxonomy is orthogonal to the question of speedy vs regular deletion. An attack article on an otherwise notable subject would be an example of "speedy delete without prejudice", an article on "Reasons George Bush should be impeached" would be a delete with extreme prejudice, but probably wouldn't qualify as a speedy.

--EngineerScotty 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Too often it is not prejudice but predi-juice! The first point I would like to make is that the deletion of an article is an action to remove the name - too often a bad article (even ones actively being developed) are used as an excuse to delete a perfectly good name. The first question anyone making this request should ask is "is it possible to write an article under this name within policy?" Too often the assumption is made that because the article fails policy, the name fails policy which is patently absurd. Next, the vote should be evidence based and not predi-juice based. A vote "I have checked for this subject and it does not exist", ought to counter way above "never heard of him". My own opinion is that the only reason to delete an article (not its contents) is when the article is impossible under the rules, or has existed as a stub for too long - otherwise the normal procedure should be to request improvement and if this fails, the article should be made into a stub.

Article voted for deletion
Recently got into a spat with a user in a talk section, then they come to my project article and AfD it on the basis that it is misnamed and NPOV.

Wikipedia and public opinion


 * Article may be misnamed, but does a misnamed article really merit deletion consideration?


 * I thought we had an NPOV flag for articles with NPOV problems?

Yeago 15:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

previously deleted articles that are re-made
How are you supposed to handle articles like Redux which were deleted before after a vote, but then were unilaterally re-made? I'm not sure what the policy would be there. -Elmer Clark 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The current article Redux is completely unconnected to the article which was deleted. That one was about a fanzine, this one is about a short animated film. If you'd like to have a look, I have temporarily restored it at User:Stormie/Redux. --Stormie 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How to alert about copyright problems?
Hello.<BR> I'm active on the Hebrew Wiki and was trying to translate the article about Savanna. While I was working on the article I've spotted a very possible copyright problem (which I've written about in here). Since I know that the copyright problems are a big issue in Wikipedia, I tried to learn how to deal with it in here (ie: En. Wiki) - but I've failed to understand.

As you might have understood already, I read English quite well, so this is not a case of a language block. The problem I had was that there is no simple explanation on how to react to such issues. I had to scroll all the way down in the Community Portal in order to find something that talks about the subject - and that article was no good to me. I had to go here, then scroll down the page in order to find the table which read "Problems that may require deletion". But all I've found there was the template to use - but what else should I do? So I had to scroll further down and read more passages and go to more references. I'm not a lazy reader, but it is hard to understand a procedure from so many different pages.

I finally gave-up. Instead, I wrote about the problem in the discussion for the article. Now, while I am writing this post, not minutes after I've posted the original problem, I was answered and helped - but it would be better if I could have understood the policy by myself.

If I may suggest a few things to improve the system:


 * The Common Procedures, as listed in the Community Portal, should be a bit more accessible to the users. There is a-lot of information on the portal and one must search through it all in order to find a common procedure.
 * In deleting a page (as under Common Procedures) there should be, right at the beginnig, a list of links with wording akin to "about copyright problems deletion", "about Inappropriate user pages deletion", "about not suitable articles deletion" etc..
 * From these links, the user should go to a page where he can find (if he was interested in copyright problems, for example): A. What is a copyright problem; B. What is not a copyright problem; And C. How to deal with a copyright problem.
 * The last part - about how to deal with the problem should be a problem-specific solution, unlike the general Template:AfD in 3 steps explanation.

I hope you may consider these suggestions. Havelock 21:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you had trouble finding it. You should have been immediately directed to Copyright problems which, I think, answers your questions.  (The shortcut that's easiest for me to remember is wp:copyvio.)  I suspect that you had trouble finding the answers you needed on the deletion-related pages because deletion is not the first line of defense against a copyright violation.  We don't generally resort to deletion until we have exhausted other options such as contacting the copyright holder to request permission, etc.  (There are some exceptions which are immediately deletable which, I admit, does confuse the issue.)  Once you've gotten to the deletion step, you are correct that the only real answer is at Deletion policy.  I think the Deletion policy page and even the CopyVio page are well linked on the Article for deletion page but if you have recommended improvements to the linking, please be bold and make the changes.  I would recommend some caution against expanding those pages, though.  They are considered by many to be too complex already.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Feature request suggestion
I often watch Special:New Pages for a variety of reasons, one of which is to look for articles that have no place in Wikipedia. However, what looks at first like an article that should be deleted, is sometimes an article that is being created in stages by a well-meaning writer. It would be useful to me to have a Special:Seven Day Old category that I could watch instead. This tool would be useful to me because it would put these articles in one watch list for me, but not when they are brand-spanking new and the author may still be trying to get the first decent draft done. I'm considering suggesting this as a software enhancement, and I wonder if other editors would find this feature useful? Johntex\talk 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD policy
What is the policy regarding AfD. I understand editors are invited to vote Keep-Delete. But what if they use invalid argunents violating Problems that don't require deletion.? Nomen Nescio 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Rossami (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Renoms
The policy regarding time limits between nominations is currently a wee bit fuzzy. Currently, there is little defence against multiple (more or less) bad-faith noms by editors opposed to the article (or, more usually, opposed to an article's subject). I had a look at Firebug's proposal above; it's pretty harsh. My idea for a compromise would be something along the lines of requiring a renominator to EXPLICITLY state reasons for the renomination (ie what's changed to the article or context since the last nom). Where no reason is given, or where an admin can clearly justify that the reasoning is false or flawed, the article will automatically be speedily kept. Within a three-month (or so- entirely negotiable) period, ANY subsequent renoms should only be done by an admin, albeit potentially through the (reasoned) request of a non-admin. I don't mean to add to the morass of policy we already have, but this issue is one that causes some problems and backlog on AfD and is one that surely can easily be addressed by a simple rewording of the current deletion protocol. This isn't new policy, it's better policy. What d'y'all think? Badgerpatrol 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no real need to codify this, as it already happens. When people repeatedly nominate an article for deletion, as with the oft-cited GNAA, it is already quickly speedy kept for WP:POINT violation. I think this would just be instruction creep. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure- GNAA is an obvious example, but there are numerous others where WP:POINT nominations are the norm and are not picked up as Speedy Keeps. The basic plank of what I am saying is merely that in order to renominate within a certain amount of time, editors simply be required to explicitly state what has changed since the last nomination. See here for a related discussion. Badgerpatrol 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additon
Making the following (or something like it) deletion policy may calm the few remaining Userbox Warriors.


 * Many Wikipedians disapprove od user pages templates that are frivolous or which express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. They may be perceived as unencyclopedic, or as condoning partisan behavior. It is always in order to suggest that such templates be substituted into user pages; or to reword them in a non-partisan fashion (for example, replacing This user likes x with This user is interested in X). If this fails, they can be listed at Templates for Deletion; a consensus shall delete them if they are harmful to the project.

Cooments? Septentrionalis 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: Some other discussions have linked templates and their related categories - advocating the deletion of both. How does this proposal relate to categories, particularly those of the form, "Wikipedians interested in X"? Rfrisbietalk 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a rediculous idea for a very simple reason. If you are new and unsure and in a deletion battle without any idea why so many people are ganging up on you, you are likely to put comments on your own user page to explain who you are (so that the preditors stop seeing you as some nerd trying to push an idea and finally understand you just started from the point of view and want some help). Once you start telling people they can't put their personality on the user page you are making everyone appear as clones - disposable clones - people without feelings - people who you can just say "delete" and they won't be extremely upset that they are being victimised as a newcomer. Also, it does help to know the kind of person who is making comments. If just anybody was to say "democracy is not founded on equality" that is predi-juice, if they happen to be a Greek Scholar with knowledge of isonomia and demcocratia, then they might have a point. --Mike 09:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Biographies of semi-notable people who do not wish to be included
* A biography of a living person with a low degree of verifiable, persistent, and long-lasting notability and where the subject has requested that the article be deleted.

Rationale: Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia, but it is not a newspaper. Legal issues are not problematic if the article is neutral and well sourced, but articles about living persons who request them to be deleted should be removed out of politeness to the subject. No one should have to have to suffer an article included if he or she does not want it there. Think of it this way: Say you, as a private person, did something highly embarrassing that gained yourself 15 minutes of fame. Your actions would be notable and verifiable enough to have a bio stub created. Now, for the rest of your or Wikipedia's lifetime, you would have to monitor this article about you. Future employers would be able to Google your name and see what you did even long after your actions have fallen out of pop-cultural reference. However, you would have no recourse since it is verifiable. Out of common courtesy, you should be able to request you article be removed. Consensus on persistent and long-lasting notability should be gained through the deletion process since this can be a sliding scale from Bill Clinton to Brian Peppers. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the same reason as I opposed this at WT:CSD, I oppose it here. People don't get to choose whether they have an article or not. If they are notable, they're included, and if they're not, they get deleted. Note too that notability can be time-varying - plenty of bio articles have been kept during the 15 minutes but deleted not too long afterwards.
 * As a result, I for one am happy with how things are, this seems like instruction creep. I'll assume good faith and not accuse you of venue shopping too :) Stifle (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Guideline addition
I'm currently attempting to get some consensus regarding handling speedy keeps of recently-nominated AfDs: Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep As few people look at WP:SK, I'm hoping to get a few more eyes on it so it isn't controversial. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Confusion
What the difference between CAT:CSD and WP:SD, And why does neither link to each other, when they both do the same thing in a different way? Pardon my newbieness of course. --DennyCrane 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Help anyone?
I don't know if any one can help but I've speedied a couple of pages and the users who made the pages or other users removed the tags. I added to the page Jack Faber and Vissenaken. And the tags have been removed thanks for the help. Whispering 05:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Whispering! In both instances the Speedies were removed by an administrator. This is because the Admin most likely thought they did not meet the requirements for a Speedy Delete. And I would have to also agree with that judgement, as there are many stub like articles out there which would be very usefull if they were expanded and thus should remain to encourage others to add content. If you feel the article should still be deleted, you should go for an WP:AFD. Whereby a consensus is called on to whether or not the article should be removed.-- DennyCrane Talk 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the Sakina bint Husayn page
Sakina bint Husayn’s page should be deleted because there are two pages about binte Hussain (Sakina bint Husayn and Sakina binte Hussain). Sakina binte Hussain is more popular and more informational page then Sakina bint Husayn. The two pages (Sakina binte Hussain and Sakina bint Husayn) are about the same girl. So I think Sakina bint Husayn should be deleted because it contains less information and less contributors then other article (Sakina binte Hussain). Thank you Salman


 * There's no need to delete in this case. Instead, you can simply replace the short page's contents with "#REDIRECT Sakina binte Hussain" and turn it into a redirect page. That way anyone who searches for her or links to her with the other spelling will be automatically sent to the correct one. I'll do that now. Bryan 05:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)