Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 7

Renomination and resources
As you (SHOULD!) know, deleting an article costs additional time and resources. Typically at least as much as the original article cost.

So if you've been going around deleting stuff just to save time and effort, you're wrong, stop deleting right now. :-P

Anyway, a recent deletion debate turned up that some people aren't aware of the costs and manpower required to deal with (re)nominations, so I added a short phrase about that, without judging either way.

Kim Bruning 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate the power hungry deleters on Wikipedia
I was building a site on Edward Capehart O'Kelley, the man who killed Robert Ford in 1892, with assistance from his descendants. It was given a "delete warning," within seconds of my first "save," so I gave my reasons, as asked, to not delete it, as I was still building it. Within a very short time some power hungry ass went ahead and deleted it anyway! Wikipedia has given me nothing but grief since I started! You will always have destroyers, and as long as they are given the authority to do so, they will. I am really regreting coming here in the first place.Soapy 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see that in your contribs - what was the article name, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Edward Capehart O'Kelley ?-- Andeh 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was deleted under Prod, and the admin missed the Hangon. I see the next day it was undeleted and moved to User space for expansion, and currently exists as an article. Seems like an honest mixup which has been corrected, surely this is not worthy of "hate" and descriptions such as "power hungry bastards"? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There was recently a problem with an editor who seemed to be on a mission to delete articles. It is much easier to delete than to create. Once again, I suggest a 2 month delay on merges and 6 months on deletions. &mdash;  Who 123  17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an endemic problem with wikipedia editors in general. It is hard to put together good pages and respond to criticisms sometimes. I have been watching numerous pages get deleted, often with lots of hard work from contributors deleted quickly with junk statements. For example, how can something be a neologism of nothing? If article writers should be expected to provide reasoning and sources then there should be more accountability on deleters, especially where there is evidence of good faith in the article, with the writer, and in the discussion regarding edits. Articles with plenty of references and defenders get deleted too, so the deletion process has become a kind of ultimate weapon for crusaders against which there is no defence. -- M0llusk 01:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are utterly right. I was savagely attacked on my first few articles (at one point I wondered whether it would technically amount to assault!). There really is a dreadful attitude in what I term the "Wikipedia Plain". New born infants are sometime mercilessly harassed by very aggressive comments before an article has even had time to develop. This is particularly distressing to a newcomer who does not know the rules or the ethos. My own experience was that once the delete notice came on, there was almost nothing I could do, and I worked to 3am several nights running to beat the deadline which in itself was counterproductive to the quality and therefore reinforced the attack!


 * Having been looking through deletes, this clearly is a huge problem. Perfectly good articles from newcomers, with clearly a lot of work, are simply tagged for deletion with a very sparse comment. I don't know why no one has ever responded to all the postings I made on the subject (but perhaps they did and I never knew where to look).


 * Here are my suggestions:


 * 1) Deletion notices should not occupy a huge space in the editing space (it is very confusing)
 * 2) Deletion notices should indicate how they can be removed if the article is { {underconstruction} }
 * 3) Deletion notices should not be the first message that a newcomer receives - therefore they should not be posted on new articles.
 * So, unless an article should be speedily deleted, the procedure should always be to post an "improve it"/"please rewrite - otherwise we will have to delete" notice." and only if that fails should it have a delete posted.
 * 1) The comments on the delete should be in proportion to the effort put in - and that means if it is any length and wasn't simply pasted, there should be comments on the talk page.
 * 2) There is a huge power inbalance between those who delete and newcomers E.g. when I was attacked I had no idea how to respond, what I needed to do to correct things or where to look for help. As far as I was concerned I had been invited to write an article and would get help - instead I found a sickening bullying culture which would not be tolerated anywhere else.
 * 3) Those who call for deletes without due care and attention (new articles, new authors, articles underconstruction, Good article that with work could stay) should be warned and if they persist banned!


 * Unfortuately, by the time I work out how to change things (if I stick around), I will have forgotten what it was like to be new (actually that memory will live with me for quite a few years!) and will probably be as bad as everyone else (in my case perhaps more!).

--Mike 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for deletion criteria
Deletion has always been used as a tool to get rid of clearly bad, clearly unencyclopaedic articles. I think it can also be used as a tool to encourage higher standards, by introducing some criteria for deletion that (hopefully) would seldom be used in practice. Much thought has led to me to suggest the following as criteria for deletion:


 * 1) Article has been a stub for more than 6 months
 * There are huge numbers of stubs which have been stubs for a very long time. If they cannot be expanded, they should be merged with another article.  The possibility of deletion ought to encourage editors to expand or merge on a much larger scale than occurs at the moment
 * 1) For new articles, no references 7 days after the article has been created
 * Referencing is essential. An unreferenced article, on a wiki-based encyclopaedia, is as good as useless, and the fact that probably 99% of our articles do not cite their sources seriously damages our credibility as an encyclopaedia.  The assumption is often that someone else can come along later and find sources.  In practice that's extremely difficult, if not impossible.  I've often found it pretty hard to cite the sources for articles I've written myself, when I've not referenced them as I wrote them.
 * 1) For older articles, tagged as unreferenced for more than six months
 * Same logic as above.

In practice, it really ought to be the case that these deletion criteria would not be used very much. A tag on an article saying "This will be deleted in six months unless sources are cited" would surely give ample time for that to be done, and ample encouragement as well. For new articles, probably the most important thing is that they're referenced, as it's so difficult for anyone else to cite sources later to back up what the original author wrote. Poor prose can be corrected easily even if you don't know anything about the topic, neutrality issues likewise, but referencing is crucial enough that we should much more strictly enforce its universal application. Verifiability is, after all, one of the three most basic policies of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be as gentle as possible, god no. For unreferenced materials, AfD already does a decent job handling those issues, and expecting an article that draws little attention to have a more experienced editor come along and find sources is poor.  The stub stuff in particular really gets my goat, as a small article is better than none at all.  Yikes all around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To re-emphasise, my idea is much more about providing incentives than actually deleting articles. All articles should be referenced - if references cannot be provided, the article should not be here, but in all likelihood references would be provided if an article was going to be deleted otherwise.  Permanent stubs imply that a topic is too small to warrant its own article - we should strongly encourage merging into larger topics.  Worldtraveller 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt for a second that you're trying to improve things, but if your intent is for higher standards, then proposing that otherwise worthwhile stubs be deleted simply because they're stubs is the wrong route to go. If your intent is for higher standards, then instead of tagging something as unreferenced and hoping that it either gets fixed or canned is the wrong route to go as well.  Current deletion policy more than deals with unreferenced material, and stubs are not a problem.  If you're intending to increase standards, then certainly there are some Wikiprojects out there who have charged themselves with fixing these problems without attempting to place it into deletion policy.  There's no such thing as a "permanent stub," it's simply a stub that the right editor hasn't expanded yet.
 * Truly, if we want to improve things, we need to march over to the pages for verifiability and reliable sources, and start expanding our base of what can be reliable, rather than just assume that things that stay stubby for an arbitrary period can't be improved upon further. This, of course, is outside of the calling of this page, but that's a much better option, IMO.  An uphill battle, as all things are, but better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the content wouldn't be deleted - just merged to a more substantial article, and thereby placed in context. I don't see that unreferenced material is adequately dealt with - I just clicked on Random 20 times and found only 1 that cited its sources.  None had inline citations.  It's so difficult to find sources for what someone else has written that we really should try and avoid the situation arising in the first place.  Other approaches, as you say, can also work, and I wouldn't want to discourage them, but I think that together with them, my suggestion can also play a role in pushing us on from a situation in which any content whatsoever is published unquestioned, unless someone asks to see a source, to one in which articles must always cite their sources.  Worldtraveller 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And for articles lacking a clear merge target? And if the merged information isn't dealt with properly in the main article?  And if it's considered "merged" but the consensus at the article is that they don't want it?  In a perfect Wiki, nothing would have to be "merged," and stand-alone articles would be encouraged.  Stubs are useful and important, and really shouldn't be discouraged, especially though deletion policy.
 * Just because references aren't clearly marked for certain articles is by no means an indicator that there aren't sources. Perhaps it's a new editor who doesn't understand our sourcing policy, perhaps it's all generally referenced in the external links, etc.
 * "It's so difficult" is no reason to give up on it. Articles should definitely cite their sources, no one's saying otherwise.  It's no reason to simply advocate deletion over a time period in the event few people see an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the situation at the moment is that 95% of articles don't cite their sources, and there is no incentive at all for people to add references to articles they find that don't have them. I could write a bot, I suppose, to automatically add Unreferenced to the million or so articles that lack references.  I think there needs to be a stronger incentive.  As for newly created articles, people get their information from somewhere, and it seems madness to allow them not to cite their sources and expect someone else later to go to the great effort of finding out where they got the information from.  If new editors don't understand our sourcing policy, they really need to learn about it, otherwise their contributions ultimately create far more work for everyone.
 * So an incentive is a carrot that your article won't get delete? There's enough reason to delete just about anything as is that we don't need to expand this further.  If you think an article can't have any sourcing, take it to AfD to be deleted, don't look for an automatic out on it.  That's simply silly.  Just because they're not inline linking or using tags on their external link areas doesn't mean there's no othe roption but deletion.  To be blunt, it feels like an easy way out, especially when a rationale like "their contributions ultimately create far more work for everyone." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As for stubs, actually I think they should be discouraged. They should be a very short term thing.  If they were a good thing, we wouldn't have the stub tags telling people they're not finished.  At the moment, the way things work, there is little incentive to expand a stub, and many or most could easily be merged into larger articles.  Worldtraveller 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. We have a real fundamental difference in our perception of what stubs achieve.  I see stubs as an admittance that, yes, we have an article on this subject, and it likely needs work.  To delete them says that we don't, and to do a merge, sloppy or otherwise, takes people to a place they didn't intend to go.  I'll pass.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On this case, I agree with BDJ. Deletion procedures are NOT the way to get articles improved; it just happens to be a relatively nice side-effect for those that are kept. There's a wealth of possibilitees available short of the nuclear option that is AFD, or the sneak attack of PROD:


 * Collaborations_of_the_week
 * Article Improvement Drive
 * Pages needing attention
 * Requests for expansion
 * Category:Wikipedia maintenance in general... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly, all these can do the job as well, but ultimately the average quality of the encyclopaedia is brought down by its acceptance of very very poor quality articles. The extreme lack of referencing severely damages the project's credibility.  How enormously better would we be, if all our articles had references.  We probably need many different approaches to trying to make that the reality.  Worldtraveller 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. We definitely agree on your overall statement - lack of referencing hurts us.  Deleting, merging, those don't fix the issue, it simply makes us look worse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, I would expect that not really many articles at all would ever get deleted if these criteria were adopted. They'd just be a strong encouragement to follow fundamental policies.  It's often incredibly difficult to find references for articles I've written myself, months after I wrote them, and it would have saved me an enormous amount of time if referencing had been mandatory when I wrote them.  Worldtraveller 08:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So make it mandatory, for yourself. It would require a huge shift of Wikipedian philosophy to require all added statements to have direct sources; however there's nothing preventing you yourself from requiring this of yourself. Lead by example, and maybe someday the attitude will change. I myself make sure to add at least one source on any new/expanded article I make about real-world phenomenon (fictional subjects are a little more lenient in my world), but I know not everybody is good at doing this. It's one of the strengths of wiki, after all, that people do what they're good at. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe it's a shift that needs to be made, if we're serious about writing a high quality encyclopaedia, perceived as accurate and reliable. I can't really understand why it would be a problem to make referencing mandatory from the start for new articles - people are getting information from somewhere, after all.  If they tell us where, that's great - takes two minutes to type it.  If they don't, someone else has got to find a source for each statement, and that can be very time-consuming.  Without a strong incentive, I can't see people suddenly becoming diligent referencers.  That is doing incalculable harm to the encyclopaedia and generating millions of man-hours of work that will have to be done later, if we want to be, and be seen to be, a serious, high quality reference work.  Worldtraveller 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's arguing with the need for sources and references. What some people are saying here is that Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy is not the place to enact that change, and that the threat of deletion is not the way to accomplish that goal. Let me know if this comes up somewhere else, and I'll probably support it. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where else would you suggest? For the vast majority of articles which are unreferenced, I don't really see any viable way of enforcing the basic policy of verifiability, except by saying they might get deleted unless sources are cited.  I'd love to know any other ideas, because I really feel that unreferenced articles are a huge drain on credibility and, if anyone wants to cite sourced for them, time as well.  Worldtraveller 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have admired Worldtraveller's die-hard views on verifiability for a long time. The state of our WP:LIVING people biographies in particular irk me greatly. And while I try my best to add sources to random pages I come across (sometimes a quick google throws up a gem of a reference) I feel like it's a losing battle. Unfortunately, I think your creation of positive incentives (such as WP:GOOD and your very welcome interventions on WP:DYK) is likely to be the best you'll be able to do - clearing out the unreferenced rubbish is unfortunately a task likely to be beyond any of our deletion processes, or any extension of them that I can foresee. Actually I do have a positive suggestion for you. What we need more of is not outright deletion of articles (which is hard to get support for anyway, especially if it is perceived as using deletion as a "big stick" rather than a tool to remove utterly unencyclopedic information) but more removal of unverified claims. What we need is a "slasher's charter" that we can point people to in edit summaries or replies to disgruntled editors that their hard work has been removed. Removal of unverified information is to be treated as utterly acceptable; doing it to a WP:LIVING bio is to be treated as a Very Good Thing Indeed. Whack 'em back to substub - A-OK. Spin-off article, no sources? Redirect it to whence it came, no questions asked (or a ready answer available). Restoring unverified information leads to a warning. Having their content stripped is often a painful experience from editors; if they can see a link to why it's so unacceptable they may change their minds. Violating the warning gets a slap on the wrist from an administrator. They picked a WP:LIVING bio to do it on? Even bigger slap. Continually restoring unverified information wouldn't be treated as typical edit-warring but as a serious offence. I'm sure there'd be some support for this in existing policies and guidelines but even though I'm an absolute stonewaller on referencing issues at WP:FLC, WP:FAC or WP:GAN I really don't have a thick enough skin to do it "in the wild" without a clear charter of some kind to back me up. I've got burnt enough on dead obvious cases involving living people bios. Wikipedia is basically like a giant sponge that grows by absorbing and assimilating packets of informations that tens of thousands of people are chucking at it. Some is good, some is even very good, while other bits aren't quite in the right format just yet but will be assimilated with a little bit of effort; on the other hand others aren't so good at all. There's "George W. Bush is an @$$" stuff that bounces right off, and a massive amount of stuff somewhere between shoddy and mediocre, and all utterly untrustworthy, that seems to settle in and bed down without getting checked over or sorted out, even if it's completely sourceless. Many of these articles are essentially correct and fairly useful, and in time people may add references and help them come good. The big problem is that it's far easier to include a source at the time you include a fact from it, and far harder for somebody else to fill it in after the event. We need to get people into the habit of pruning the stuff they can't verify when they look over an article. It's in this critical bulk of material that's held to be so sacred as to be "above deletion", but nobody's got a clue whether or not it's actually true, that our fatal bullets may lie. WP:DEL appears not to be the place to discuss this (I guess it's fair enough not to see deletion as an educative whacking stick).WP:V perhaps would be a better forum? Supposedly WP:V is one of our long-standing and most robust core editing policies(!) Or why not put a charter of sorts at Removing unsourced material is justified? Now that people are taking us (far too) seriously, the joke (though hopefully not the fun!) is over. The time has come to zap the crap before the crap zaps us (again). Deletion seems to be for sub-crap that can't bite back. We obviously need other tools, both positive (WP:GA being a good start) and negative (ideas on a postcard addressed to WP:V?) TheGrappler 06:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (Do you think there'd be much opposition to a "slasher's charter" by the way? I suspect that most of the opposition here is to the fact that deletion is something of a holy cow, whose name may not be invoked within 2 miles of the word "article" or 5 miles of the word "automatic", rather than any substantive opposition to the idea of removing content. Indeed, due to edit histories or somesuch, the idea of "article" and "content" are not treated as synonymous. Threatening deletion sounds mililaristic; but to strip out unverified claims is to be factist and not at all a fascist. I suspect most editors would agree. TheGrappler 07:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

There was recently a problem with an editor who seemed to be on a mission to delete articles. It is much easier to delete than to create. Once again, I suggest a 2 month delay on merges and 6 months on deletions after the merge and delete tags are placed. &mdash;  Who 123  17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Biggish change
I'd like to see some more discussion on this change, it's a bit big. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Biggish change


 * You are quite right, there are far too many posts and not enough discussion ... if it carries on like this I'll vote to delete! --Mike 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Help
I tried to edit this page to reflect the change in policy on changing to  but I didn't understand what the tlp tag meant in the edit page. Could someone make the change and explain what it means? Thanks! JamieJones talk 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just learned this one myself. Instead of using &lt;nowiki&gt; tags around a tag you wish to refer to (rather than transclude), you can use the tl tag in this form: name-of-template-to-not-transclude, which produces the template with double-curly-braces and an internal link to the template itself.

To make prod:

prod

which essentially is the same as using

&lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt;


 * BigNate37T·C 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RfD discussion time
just made an undiscussed, unilateral change to the Deletion policy discussion time for Redirects for deletion, writing "seven days (in practice, more like two)". There have been numerous complaints and Deletion reviews over Freak's rapid and unwarranted closures at RfD.

Many of us, with other responsibilities in life, only check our XfD pages once or twice per week. For special cases, with clearly defined requirements, there is Speedy deletion.

I oppose turning all RfDs into speedy deletions. The official policy is seven days, and should remain seven days, to give editors time to participate.
 * --William Allen Simpson 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. There's no rush. Two days isn't exactly speedy deletion, but it's certainly not enough time to form meaningful consensus on any remotely debatable redirect. Deco 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. &mdash; Catherine\talk 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the vast majority of RFDs are obvious no-brainers. As long as you have an intelligent admin working on them (rather than a mindless vote-counting drone), they can be closed significantly faster than seven days. Seven days to deal with a redirect is ... very long. Unlike deleting an article, there really isn't anything to be lost by an RFD closure. It's about fixing what stuff points to and if it shouldn't be pointing to anything it gets deleted. It's trivial, basically. Seven days seems unwarranted. -- Cyde↔Weys 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FoN has take to running RfD as something of a personal decision-making zone of his own. That he gets fed up with people in 48 hours is not really a reason to expect everyone with an interest to keep up with a comparative backwater within one admin's interest horizon. In the case of some widely-linked redirects in particular, there is something to be lost by early closures; that a different outcome might require the reversal of all the delinkage some time after additional edits have been made to the relevant articles. There is no hurry; there is no reason to make it the fastest of all the deletion processes. However, if there are a large number of very obvious redirects passing through RfD that need deleting as slam-dunks, then there is probably a case for a new speedy criterion. -Splash - tk 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seven days may seem to some people as "very long", but to some of us it's not very long at all, especially if it's over a weekend or holiday. This is Summer and people do go on vacations, also. I often am able to access the net only on weekends and just have gotten my laptop back from repairs after over 2 weeks. And Wikipedia is not the ONLY thing I do on the Net. Six months may be way too long, but for some people a few days is going to the opposite extreme. I would suggest 2 weeks plus the next weekend with an extra week if there's a MAJOR holiday during the period. CFLeon 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * MAJOR holiday? What did you have in mind? — Jul. 22, '06  [14:04] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Christmas, New Year's, etc. My local public transportation agency recognizes 6: NY's, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and XMas. It's a bit heavy at the 4th Quarter of the year, but is a guide to work from. Notice that all are either 2 days or have Mondays off. This is opposed to Flag Day, for instance. CFLeon 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The wiki runs at its own pace, not yours. You don't have any inherent right to be involved in every discussion on Wikipedia.  If you can't be around for weeks at a time, just accept that you will miss a chance to get involved in some stuff.  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to be focusing on quick closings as "deletes". There are also many that are closed quickly as "keeps". In fact, part of Freak's edits that were reverted included the statement: "Additionally, a nominated redirect may be edited (by any user) to create a new article or disambiguation page, at which point the corresponding RFD nomination is typically closed as null, void, meaningless, and no longer applicable." I'd hate to see bureaucracy get in the way of clear cut decisions that benefit our readers. When it's obvious that a redirect should be changed, it should be closed quickly so that readers get the content and not a dead end page. -- JLaTondre 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's why I close RFDs early; to benefit the readers. If it's obvious that something is no longer going to be a redirect and it needs to be a disambiguation page, there's no point in waiting five more days; just fix it now!  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The original text prior to Freak's edit was "about a week". When Simpson changed that, he made it "seven days". I've restored the original text. I would note that wording is consistent with categories and images. If we're going to argue over the duration, we should keep the original definition and not either sides particular view. It seems to me that the original ambiguity recognizes that it's not a hard and fast rule, but that there are times when the decision is clear cut. -- JLaTondre 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I merely removed the Freak parenthetical, rather than reverting. In general, I view "about a week" to be longer than 7 days.  Heck, at Cfd, everything is usually listed for at least 8 days!
 * --William Allen Simpson 22:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Too-fast Deleters?
I'd like to make a complaint about people that are way too fast to use the Delete Template. I was just putting up James Madison DeWolf, and someone put up a Delete template LITERALLY within a minute! I didn't even have time to access the page a second time! And this is not unique- I've seen several deletes posted in just the time it took me to go to the restroom and come back. Whatever you think of the particular articles, this is way too speedy. There should be a minimum length of time to fairly give the poster a chance to eat, go to the restroom, access a source or whatever before some Net Nanny freaks out. CFLeon 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Recently, there was a problem with an editor who appeared to be on a mission to destroy articles though merging and deletion. Not every editor checks articles that they are interested in frequently. At that time I would only check those articles once a month or so. I would like to suggest that a policy be adopted that a merge template must be up for 2 months or so before the merge is done. I would like to see something similar with perhaps 4-6 months notice on article deletion. Is this the best place to discuss this? &mdash;  Who 123  16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I can convery how upsetting it is to have a deletion notice posted before an article is ready to be criticised (particularly as newcomer) - let me just say at one point I wondered whether the action of the deletionists could be construed as criminal assault (I was working to 3am trying to "beat the deadline"). There really is something rotten with the Wikipedia Deletion policy and it desparately needs to change!

I believe the procedures for deletion should be:


 * 1) If it meets criteria for speedy deletion - speedy delete.
 * 2) If the content probably warrants deletion and it is unlikely any article could be written under the title proposed that would be kept, then slap on a deletion notice
 * (but the comment should be in proportion to the effort/newness of the author') 


 * 1) If the content may warrant deletion but it is possible the title may be good for an article, I proposed a: A Request to rewrite


 * A Request to rewrite

My personal opinion is that unless an article meets a criteria for speedy deletion or is posted by a seasoned author, then authors objecting to the deletion should be able to get the deletion notice removed and have it replaced with a time limited "Request for rewrite".

In addition the request to rewrite (and deletion notices) should go to a help page which explains:


 * 1) How to request help ({ { helpme } } -it may sound obvious but it isn't - and when you are new and spending 90% of your time trying to work out how to make bold and have one evening before the deletion date to finish the article ..... trying to find out how to get help is a nightmare!)
 * 2) How to "deal" with a request to delete.
 * 3) How to get it removed so that you can see what you are editing
 * 4) How to use an { { under construction } } notice!
 * 5) How to get it removed so that those involved have an incentive to work on the article
 * 6) How to change it into a request to rewrite
 * 7) How to move to home test-pages (not the kid's sandpit)
 * 8) A simple explanation of the deletion discussion.
 * 9) How to speedy delete your own article
 * 10) A link to some common "templates" for articles by which I mean: User:Haseler/template
 * 11) How to change the name of an article to make it less "contentious"
 * 12) How to explain the purpose of an article which is under construction so that the article is considered for its purpose rather than the current state of editing

Now if someone wants to reply "all they have to do is just look in" .... I have a simple reply, I never found it and if I can't find it why should any other newcomer? --Mike 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The main point I should have made was that if Wikipedia wants outside experts in a subject to come in and produce articles then there must be assumption of good faith when people write articles. In particular there must be more protection for "articles under development" by those who are experts in their subject but not at all experts with wikipedia or the very aggressive & inflexible deletion policy --Mike 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another (very) early close of an RfD (that came back through DRV for being closed to soon)
We either need to change policy to reflect practice (but only with consensus) or stop closing RfDs early. I've seen at least two admins complain that RfDs that should be obvious to everyone are coming back through DRVs. Rather than prevent it from happening by allowing all RfDs to conform to policy by allowing the discussions to remain open for the full duration, what usually happens is the DRV itself is closed within a day. I've woken up to see a new RfD open and close before I can comment, and I edit quite often. Now, we have WP:RFD which came back from DRV (and rightly so; five deletes and one "strong keep" by the redirect's creator) after being kept and closed before the seven days. This DRV RfD was closed the next day it was opened. Might I point out that these are to stay open for seven days unless they qualify for early closure per WP:DEL:
 * If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period, for example, a clear consensus for speedy deletion, a clear consensus for a speedy keep, or a consensus for a redirect. The debate should remain transcluded on the appropriate deletion page. If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea (emphasis added).

Surely an RfD with several delete nominations should not be kept immediately after one person argues for keeping it, and after it comes back as a DRV there is definately substantial debate on the redirect. This is getting frustrating. Have the admins who close RfDs early against policy never read the relevent policy, or do they just have no respect at all for it? I'd really like to hear a good explaination why there are multiple pages of policy being violated on a nearly-hourly basis through RfDs. BigNate37T·C 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunately the latter. I've tried everything I know of short of RfAr for the most egregious violators, as this is one of my major pet peeves, but if you can't convince the admin to reopen on the talk page, I encourage you to take it to DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not really a good solution; I'd rather take it to dispute resolution if it is an ongoing, repeat-offense sort of thing than make a WP:POINT of taking redirects to DRV for policy's sake (even if policy needs something done for its sake). I understand where you are coming from though, I'm just hesitant to get into a policy war such that the offending admins become even more obstinant in closing valid DRV-RfDs early, rather than just the WP:POINTs. BigNate37T·C 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't a point, it's what DRV is for. I'm in on whatever you decide you want to do about it, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss that close. Try deletion review or arbitration. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between different administrators on whether robotic and slavish adherence to written policy is appropriate.  Longstanding Wikipedia tradition is that it is not. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a perfectly viable venue to discuss deletion policy, especially as he was asking whether we need to adjust policy to meet with those who don't consider it important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to discuss the specific early-closure DRV/RfD except as an example of a broken process and/or policy. BigNate37T·C 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter if an RFD is closed early? Are you denying that the majority of early decisions made on RFD are the right ones, or are you upset because you didn't get a chance to have your say before it was over? If there is an RFD outcome you disagree with remember WP:NBD and contact the closing administrator on their talk page. I've been working on RFD very actively recently, and yes, a lot of them are being closed early, but then again, a lot of them have really obvious resolutions. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean like the Reichstag thing? Only commenter who got in within the 4 hours it was open said "Keep, harmless", and as it had the WP: pseudo-namespace prefix, the usual mainspace arguments wouldn't have applied here. Is it silly? Yes, but so is BJAODN and Hangman and the target article to begin with... reducing the timeline to 48 hours is one thing, but 4 hours is just over-the-top. There's no speedy criteria for this example. Give it a rest. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A case could be made for CSD G1 (Patent nonsense). -- JLaTondre 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is so, then db-nonsense should have been placed on the redirect. If the attending admin agreed and deleted the redirect, that warrants early closure (but does not prevent recreation). BigNate37T·C 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. If an admin decides something meets CSD, they can delete it without it being tagged and close the nomination. If it get's recreated, it can be re-deleted using the same criteria. -- JLaTondre 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde, I think that's a bit of a straw man fallacy. I'm not arguing the individual merits or lack thereof of premature closes but rather the habitual disregard for policy that governs RfD. In my eyes, the only two fixes are to either stop this disregard for policy and end this ultra-liberal use of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR reasoning, or reach a consensus on a policy change that would reflect the current status-quo. In other words, either bring RfD administration in line with policy or bring policy in line with the admins' actions. As a side note, I am not condoning a ninja-change to the policy. BigNate37T·C 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There were 8 keeps and 1 delete this time and that's not counting all the original overturns at the first DRV. Even if you add the deletes votes from last time, I think closing this was a ligitimate application of WP:SNOW as it's clear there is not going to be a consensus for deletion. However, the rfd tag was not removed from the article so it wasn't a properly executed close either. I think, given the circumstances, this one should be re-opened and allowed to run its course. As such, I've reverted the closure. -- JLaTondre 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop saying "votes" ... none of this is a vote. -- Cyde↔Weys  19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why people get so hung up on that word. For all practical purposes, it is a vote. It's just not a simple majority system with binding results. People seem to equate voting as synonymous with Western-style democracy. Even dictatorships can have voting. But if you want to substitute "opinions" for "votes", feel free. -- JLaTondre 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply put, why would we evade process on ANYTHING that got sent back from DRV? The whole point there is to correct flaws in process, not to give people another chance to be bold (we're already past edit, revert, and now solidly into discuss). I'm not a process slave, but this just doesn't make sense. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You said it, we're not slaves to process. Where Deletion review makes a clear mistake, it should be ignored. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but flanning the flames over an extra few days just doesn't seem worth it. -- JLaTondre 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't regard closing a clearly pointless discussion as "fanning the flames". Mindless insistence on following petty  bureaucracy for its own sake, on the other hand, is a most disturbing abuse of a process whose purpose has already been served by what has gone before. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When people oppose the result, it is -not- a pointless discussion. Everyone need to get it through their heads that words like obvious and clearly are not valid arguements, especially if someone else is arguing against your point of view. Hint: if an RfD comes back via DRV, it is not obvious or clear to everyone involved that the original RfD was the correct decision. BigNate37T·C 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Mindless insistence" on saving 5 days despite some users feeling like it's being rammed down their throughts could also be argued as "a most disturbing abuse" of a WP:IAR. Why shouldn't both sides maintain civility and assume good faith? Would having the debate remain open 5 more days really hurt anything? Does saying "we're right and you're wrong no matter what the process says" really help anything? Short cutting process is an important aspect of Wikipedia, but it seems to me that this un-used redirect is hardly important enough that it couldn't wait. -- JLaTondre 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Nae'blis—why would we evade process on ANYTHING that got sent back from DRV? "Obviously" someone disagrees with a previous result and the RfD should be open for the full duration. DRV/RfD wars are not productive in writing an encyclopedia. We should at least be letting DRV RfDs run the full time, even if we can't apply policy correctly to first-time RfD nominees. BigNate37T·C 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Major correction - there is no legitimate application of WP:SNOW. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW is an opinion and not policy. That there is no legitimate application of it is also an opinion and not policy. -- JLaTondre 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Snowball clause (also known as WP:SNOW) is an essay that describes a kind of boldness that has been present in Wikipedia since the earliest days. as such, it's an expression of a strong trend in Wikipedia editing.  It's a bit late to claim that it has "no legitimate application."  All it says is that bothersome process can be sidelined when the effect would be the same without the process. If the snowball clause were invalid, we couldn't delete (or keep) anything without a discussion. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pehaps this should be listed on a more-traversed page where other editors will have the opportunity to join the discussion? I don't know how to go about this, but if someone does and thinks that it is worth doing, feel free. BigNate37T·C 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CENT comes to mind since this has to do with deletion policy, but it's already kind of overloaded (I suspect people aren't removing dead discussions there). Village pump (proposals) also seems like a likely candidate. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly, somebody reverted JLaTondre's reopening. Where is the discussion?  And I'll note that this is abuse of process by those 3 (Cyde, Freak, Tony) is fairly frequent.  So, where is the Arbitration?
 * --William Allen Simpson 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Process has to be pissed on regularly, to stop it getting dry and dusty. --Tony Sidaway 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't actually have anything particularly forward-looking and constructive to say.... -Splash - tk 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I just did. Fuck process. Long live Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the admins won't follow process, policy, or rules, perhaps they aren't appropriate to serve as admins. rootology 01:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Something to consider for both sides
I should append that last statement--it's not an attack on Tony (although I *do* strongly disagree with many of his viewpoints on process). Any "system" of this size, complexity, and magnitude depends on process. From the government to corporate settings, an established procedure and workflow is critical to ensuring that everything remains on the up and up, and that nothing can fall through the cracks. At worst, if *EVERYTHING* were done by the book, is that you'd get a backlog on some relative queues of work, but that again is a self correcting thing. As they back up, more people could become admins to help in turn keep up. Bypassing or "pissing" on the process and systems that 99.9% of the users of Wikipedia rely and expect for expediency is a HORRENDOUS idea and attitude for anyone to have. It leads to pointless fights, hurt feelings, and endless ill will.

In the case of erring on the side of Keep for deletions, this is not a bad thing--if you AfD and in 48 hours you have 90 people saying Keep and one lone voice saying to nuke the article, you might as well keep. However, if it's a possible no concensus either way, or a possible delete, it MUST run out the duration. What does it honestly hurt to do that? Keeping it "by the books" ensures that no one can complain: it was done by the books. And no, Tony, I can see you gearing up to type it--this does not give anything to the trolls. It disarms them, if they are trolls, since they can't cry foul. If the community BY IT'S OWN RULES says "You're out", you're out, and that's that.

I suspect that some people may be in favor of bypassing process--not naming names--or general procedure to see their own personal ideals, ends, desires, and vision of the project wrought or brought about. However, this is a Very Bad Idea. No one man or woman's vision is relevant in the end beside Jimbo's; everything else should be consensus. If all the people discussing this say that concensus is you "do it by the book", well, then, anyone who bypasses that should be set to be held accountable. There is oversight for perceived bad deletions, as there should be, but there should also be a firm, committed, and iron clad committment to err in the side of keeping at all times. At worst, you'll have to wait another day or four, and at best, if you have a vested personal interest to see an article 'gone', it'll be gone anyway by the book, with no wiggle room for complaint, if you do it RIGHT.

I honestly recommend that it be set as a policy that WP:SNOW be judged 100% inappropriate for anything as an AfD, or No Concensus. It should only be even considered or allowable as practice when the final closing will be clear keep, never othewise. Deleting content from Wikipedia is a very serious business, and if something is up for AfD rather than Speedy or Prod, there's a good reason for it be up for discussion in all likelihood. It's foolhardy and irresponsible to torch content that can be worthwhile or possibly rehabilitated to "piss on the process". As an addendum, I propose that with this adjustment to policy it be ALSO policy that any inappropriate and premature closings as a matter of policy by reversed and reopened to run correctly. There's no good reason to just torch something--I mean, literally, in the fifth day and 23rd hour someone could make a compelling argument of such clarity and insight that it could sway the closing admin one way or the other--it would be wrong and unfair for both inclusionists and deletionists to simply deny them that right and oppurtunity in the spirit of "Faster Pussycat, Delete Delete." 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem articles where deletion may be needed
I added Proposed Deletion to the Deletion_policy table, as it only listed AfD as a method of deleting articles. Some of the long time policy articles still haven't been updated to include PROD deletion, this was one of them. --Xyzzyplugh 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

video game characters and such drivel?
is there a page specifically devoted to notability requirements for video game characters, old TV series, etc.? wikipedia seems totally stuffed with such crud. e.g. i was surprised to see a prominent mention on Gypsy (Fleetwood Mac song) to the "fact" that this song appeared in a single episode of "Knight Rider" -- and even more surprised to see the *endless* reams of drivel written about that show (which ran only between 1982-1986, for god's sake!). do we really need an article about FLAG, the organization that Michael Knight worked for; Garthe Knight, his occasional doppelganger; KARR, his car's nemesis; the plot of every single episode List of Knight Rider episodes, etc. etc.? similarly, when i tried typing "zero" with the expectation of a disambig page with a clear link to the japanese fighter plane, i instead got an endless list of characters from video games and tv series i've mostly never even heard of. (the link to the plane was about the 50th entry before i moved it up.) i'd suggest a page specifically about fictional shows, games, etc. that tries to get people to think twice or three times before posting. (one possible criterion: imagine someone reading wikipedia 20 years from now, do you think anyone would possibly care about this? if not, probably doesn't belong.) Benwing 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For episodes of TV shows, see Centralized discussion/Television episodes, which suggests that individual TV episodes only have their own article if there's enough verifiable stuff that can be said about them. Otherwise, the content should be merged. JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination
We are having a bit of a brawl over at Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. Many feel this entire nomination is bad faith, and the original nominator has even pulled out. How do I go about getting the nomination strikken, as this entire AfD is wrong. After the nomination went up, people started adding new articles to the list which gives no concise way for people to vote, as new things are added. Most, if not all, are major characters inn the Warcraft universe, and as such work in accordance with WP:FICT. The admin who re-opened the nomination stated that it was heading for "deletion" which I don't see. And nominating that many articles is plain wrong, seeing as there is no way to keep track of how the vote is being counted and which of the articles should be exempt from the vote. I don't think editors who vote "delete", actually read all the articles nominated. And as such have no idea which of the articles are major or not, or if they should be keept or not. This entire vote is messy, and should anyone want to nominate characters for deletion, they should do so individual. Havok (T/C/c) 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reality Television Contestants
This keeps coming up - all over Wikipedia are people whose only noteworthy aspect is that they were a contestant on Survivor or some other show. I understand if you won, and even if you are a runner-up, but that being the only noteworthy thing in your history, well, I don't see it. But I'm open to being swayed. Is this an old discussion? What is the consensus? --DavidShankBone 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do they have non-trivial mentions in the media? Are they famous for more than just their appearance on the show, and thus worth having their own article? Are they making the article too long by their inclusion? That'd be a start, and none of those are specific to reality TV. -- nae'blis 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Take Rafe Judkins, where one person in the discussion page made the point that his inclusion seemed merited by the fact he is was the first gay Mormon on the show - he was voted out early.  External links include one to his brother's website.  Eliza Orlins's only noteworthy attribute is that she was on the show, although some well-wisher has included her study abroad and Key Club awards to argue for her merit as an encylopedia entry; and then there's Ami Cusack whose only other noteworthy aspect is that she appeared in a Playboy spread (before the show).  I realize some of these people may have a fan base, but I don't see evidence of it, nor that this alone merits inclusion.  Cindy Hall didn't even make the final four and is a zookeeper.  Morgan McDevitt has nothing noteworthy.  However, Gary Hogeboom was an NFL  quarterback.  Fine.  But this is quickly going to get out of hand, if it has not already.  These very entries are handled perfectly well by the ABC homepage (if not better).  Guidance?--DavidShankBone 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with nae, their notability should be tied to how many non-trivial references they have in the media, perhaps regarding controversial aspects of their participation in the show. This whole conversation assumes non-notability for anything else, naturally. (I don't believe their religion or sexual persuasion qualifies as "notability" on its own, either.)Michael Dorosh 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. But I disagree with nae - if they're on the show, they very, very notable, and they really should have individual articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to opine on this. It is often true that conversations about these things make more sense if every instance of the word "notability" is changed to "verifiability". I suggest that the sensible thing to do is to only create child articles from the television show article for those contestants for whom there is enough WP:V material from reliable sources. Jkelly 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious Jeff, who else do you consider "very, very notable?" Unlike American Idol, Survivor contestants are chosen for an innate ability in all of us - the ability to "survive" under certain circumstances. What, exactly, makes them "very, very notable" that, say, you or I do not have? Their desire to hope their instinct is good enough to win $1,000,000? I agree the top two challenges merit a page, but beyond that they are discharged game show contestants. Can you find anything in the WP:BIO section that makes them "very, very notable?" I can be swayed, but as it stands now, I don't see what they have accomplished or achieved if all they have done is compete in a game of survival for a lot of money; a television game that has a heavy production quotient. --DavidShankBone 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is full of articles of people who do not deserve them because they are simply unnotable and that's a shame. I have read the articles mentioned above.  None of them are within Wikipedia's standards.  The formating is terrible and they seem more like a fansite type of work then something worthy of an encyclopia.  None of the articles meet the minimum cualifications to be considered notable, see: Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Just because a person participates in a T.V. show does not make him notable.  If that were the case, then there would be an article for all the hundreds of thousands of T.V. show constestants.  I believe that the above mentioned articles should either provide verifiable sources of their notability or otherwise they should be nominated for deletion.  Let us remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fansite.  Tony the Marine 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the criteria for WP:BIO is, "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Given a show like Big Brother in the US, you can get multiple sources, that meet WP:RS which include TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, CBS, local newspapers in the contestant's hometown - see ,  and .  Regardless of my LOVE for the show, I do not believe all these contestants should be included in an encyclopedia simply for their participation in the show, witht he exception of perhaps the final two.  Perhaps a new guideline needs to be written for reality star bio's, similar to the way there is WP:PORNBIO to determine nobility of a specific class of biographies.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected deleted pages
Hi.

Curiosity question: If I have a good enough reason to re-create a deleted *and* protected page, can I do it myself? Can you grant temporary adminship/unprotecting to allow for such a thing, if you agree that the reasons I give are good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.199.173 (talk • contribs)


 * The best way to go would be to create a username (it takes seconds of your time), go to User:Yourusername/sandbox, create your proposed article there, and then convince someone it should replace the protected deleted page notice.  Jkelly 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So it depends on being able to "convince" somebody -- and if they have some sort of bias against the attempt (even if the proposal is good and would actually be acceptable under the rules), then I still couldn't do it. That sucks ****. Then again, it would also apply to the ideas of getting temporary adminship or unprotection as well. But thanks for the answer anyway. (Original poster) 70.101.145.181 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't another alternative be to re-create the article in a User sandbox (as above), and then bring the original deletion to Deletion review and provide a wikilink to the replacement article? That way, it's not one person's opinion; a consensus would be obtained.&mdash; Chidom  talk   01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if it's uncontroversial, try any one admin (or just post on the talk page of the deleted page, and hope). If you run into opposition, take it to Deletion Review or reconsider your page creation. :) -- nae'blis 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Identity of deleting administrator
I've just run across a page that was Speedy Deleted by a user who is only identified by an IP address. I would think that this wouldn't be possible; if users without accounts can't create pages, how do they delete them? I don't disagree with the deletion; I just wonder about the methodology.&mdash; Chidom  talk   16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tagging an article to speedy deletion is a normal edit, and anonymous editors may edit pages. But deleting is possible only by administrators; the log is here. (AFAIK only registered may become administrators) googl t 16:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the log; that identified the administrator. Having tagged a few articles with reason myself, I know anyone can tag it; I also knew that only an administrator could act on the tag/actually delete the article. What was confusing me was that the note at the top of the page is "The result was Speedily Deleted as a non-notable biography. 82.33.48.5 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)"; that didn't identify the Administrator and gave the impression that someone signed in under an IP address had done the actual deletion. Apparently they deleted the article while signed in as an administrator and added the comment while they were logged out.&mdash; Chidom  talk   01:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting illegal material
While reviewing Articles for deletion/Viceroy seeds, it occurred to me that for Wikipedia to publish this in my country is illegal. Allowing the information to be downloaded is publication according to the law of both the US and Australia. In future we ought to be able to do something about this. If someone were to publish methods of committing suicide or images of child pornography on wikipedia, that too would be illegal. - Richardcavell 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the servers are in the States, I don't think it matters what is illegal elsewhere. More to the point, we can't track every nation's laws and admins looking after CSD pages would not be able to easily verify whether it is, in fact, illegal in country X. Further, if the material is illegal, fix it! Then nominate it for deletion, but there is no rule saying you can't cut out the child porn and bomb-making instructions first. CSD isn't the right way to deal with these matters. If your removal of illegal or illegitimate material is being reverted, or if it is grossly inappropriate and should not be on the history even, perhaps it should be brought up on WP:AN/I.  Big Nate 37 (T) 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the only way to fix the article I named is to delete the whole damn thing. If someone posted an advert soliciting mail orders for child porn, I think that it would get deleted because it offends people. The fact that the material is on US servers is not relevant; under both US and Australian law, it's published where it is downloaded. - Richardcavell 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article you use as an example should be deleted but as spam, not because it happens to be illegal in your country. First the practical issues. Almost everything is illegal somewhere and legal somewhere else.  If we tried to dumb Wikipedia down to the lowest common denominator, we'd have almost nothing left. Second, your statement that "it's published where it is downloaded" is an untested and controversial assertion in law and is not to the best of my limited knowledge, the law in the US.  Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union in particular seems to dispute that point.  US court decisions on the applicability of local obsenity standards to downloaded materials are also unclear.  IANAL but from what I've read, the general rule in both US and international law is that you have to have some sort of presence in the jurisdiction to be subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.  Amazon.com can be sued in the states where they house their servers, their warehouses, etc.  If they have no physical presence in Alabama and don't do any business there, they can't be legitimately sued there.  Likewise in the international arena, something may be illegal in North Korea but unless the organization has a physical presence in the country, any judgment is going to be moot.  If you're really concerned about the legality of a particular point, though, the right answer is to contact our legal office directly.  Dealing with such issues through the community-driven deletion process is no guarantee that the consensus decision would match the relevant law.  The whole question is really outside the scope of this policy.  Rossami (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's gone to AfD and been speedy deleted.Articles for deletion/Viceroy seeds Tyrenius 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Offering a home for unwanted content
Considering my own experience with deletionists and my experience as a mergist, I offer the ManyBytesAgo wiki as a substitute home. I've already petitioned meta for an Interwiki address, and I've implemented existing Interwiki addressing on the site. Cwolfsheep 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Informing the creators is being ignored
Unfortunately, as thousands of articles, categories, photos, lists etc are being deleted or renamed, it is becoming increasingly rare to find editors (who make the nominations to delete or rename) follow the normal courtesy of contacting the original creators of articles and categories, and often articles and categories are deleted or renamed without the input of their creators or from those editors who know more about the subject and contents of the articles and categories. I speak from experience because these acts breed uncalled for enmity between otherwise well-meaning editors. Somehow, a way has to be found to stress and publicize the Wikipedia guidelines which is clearly stated below in a few places:


 * 1) Proposed deletion point number 3: Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use Article title
 * 2) Articles for deletion: It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use Article title (for creators who are totally new users), Article title (for creators), or Article title (for contributors or established users).
 * 3) Categories for discussion: When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use cfd-article for this.

All suggestions as to how to improve the present situation should be welcomed and popularized. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IZAK 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not post the same discussion in three places. You've also brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At least four: Wikipedia talk:AfD categories. --ais523 17:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By my count, it was cross-posted to 18 different discussion pages. All have now been consolidated to here.  Rossami (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi BigNate: This is a serious issue and deserves the widest notfication across the the board. This is not an isolated phenomenon and this serves as a notification because not everyone reads the same discussion pages. Thanks a lot. IZAK 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So post a link, rather than saying the same things several times and ending up with a fragmentary discussion. Guy 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (moved the two above from WT:CSD) Do not crosspost please. We have a village pump for that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Guy and Radiant: It's time to raise the profile of this issue, so that at least Admins can be aware of it and they should be the ones to ask and ensure that the original editors have been informed before they finally zap an article or category. I must say the guys over at Images and media for deletion have been very good at this over the last year or two. I used to complain to them in the olden days when they just came along and zapped things without notice, and at least now they have their fancy templates with warnings they put on users' talk pages that either you get the copyright info on a picture or it's gotta go. We need that same level of efficiency and accountabilty all around, otherwise a lot of people will be getting madder and madder as time rolls on. IZAK 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Deletion review as of 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since all those are recommendations rather than requirements (and frankly, quite a lot of work given the high amount of traffic on deletion pages), your best bet is to educate new users to Watchlist pages they make.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Radiant: I realize that these are "recommendations" but if you add up tens of thousands of cases of "recommendations" being ignored then that builds up to a serious problem that will invarioubly cause conflict. Some editors slave away at articles and they may have many articles they have on their watchlist and other things going on in their lives, and then boom, their work is gone (not even with a wimper) without the courtesy of a remark on their user pages. It can become very annoying and frustrating. So it's time to raise the profile of this issue, so that at least Admins can be aware of it and they should be the ones to ask and ensure that the original editors have been informed before they finally zap an article or category. I must say the guys over at Images and media for deletion have been very good at this over the last year or two. I used to complain to them in the olden days when they just came along and zapped things without notice, and at least now they have their fancy templates with warnings they put on users' talk pages that either you get the copyright info on a picture or it's gotta go. We need that same level of efficiency and accountabilty all around, otherwise a lot of people will be getting madder and madder as time rolls on. Take care. IZAK 16:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a good point. We don't want to drive away good editors. I suppose I'm trying to avoid the other extreme... there was a wave at TFD a while ago with somebody 'speedy keep'ing everything for which all involved parties were not properly notified (and mind you, an article can have a quite long edit history). There's probably a middle line here somewhere...
 * Ah, one thing that you could do is contact the author(s) of the various "nominate for deletion" scriptlets. Those could easily be configured to automatically notify. That's a start. Other than that, you should raise some like-minded people and carefully watch AFD and notify the authors, then tell the nominator that "well, I've notified the author of that article, would you please consider doing the same in the future?" in some nice way. HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant: Let me be blunt: If somebody has the audacity to nominate the hard work of others for deletion then they have the obligation to at least let one, ideally more, creators of the article know that their work is about to be deleted or renamed. I have nominated my fair share of articles for renaming and deletion and it only takes a few extra seconds to look up the history of an article and see who created it and who was involved with it. No need to contact the whole "mailing list." If it's an anonymous user or a red link with no other edits that wrote the article then it's not going to work. But when you have a fairly good or serious topic from an editor with a decent track record of onging edits (the majority of cases) then why shouldn't they be informed that their hard work is about to go down the drain? Monitering watchslists is not enough as that puts the onus on the original editor to protect his work from predators, and in any case there is plenty of work to do on undeleted articles, so that when pure deletionism rears its head it's not easy to catch. And the sad part is that many articles are nominated for deletion by people who know very little about the subject and often have their own POV agendas that the closing admins almost never notice. You know, there are so many WikiProjects nowadays, so that if no original editor can be located at least place a courtesy notice on a WikiProject talk page related to the topic about to be deleted. No-one is asking for major work here, just that one or two original or primary creators of articles and categories be contacted before their work is zapped and that they should not have to discover that bad things happened ex post facto. IZAK 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't deletion fall under "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it"? This is like saying "if you want to edit someone elses material, please inform them before doing so."  Once it's been written, it ceases to be "their" material.  Perhaps we should be teaching people that it isn't "theirs", and not to take it personally if it gets deleted.  --Kbdank71 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

''comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy as of 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not post the same discussion in three places. You've also brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BigNate: Hi again: As I have stated, this is a widespread problem and not everyone reads or notices the same discussion pages. There is no other way to bring this issue to wider audiences than by placing it on those Talk pages that are devoted to this. You can't limit it. Rather than focusing on the posts, why not let us know what your thoughts are about how to deal with the problem. I have mentioned to another editor that perhaps the solution is to follow the example of the guys at Images and media for deletion who have become very efficient at letting users know that images will be zapped unless copyright info will be added quickly. Ideally, it should be Admins who ensure that before they zap articles or categories that the original creators of articles and categories have been informed on their talk pages. Follow the example of the "Images and media" editors and create a special template that could be easily placed on an editor's page to let him know that an article he has worked on is about to be deleted and would he and other experts on the topic care to respond before it's too late and the article is blown away. Let's focus on the substance of the issues here please. Thanks. IZAK 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion as of 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * IZAK, if we have a template with spots that must be filled in for each deletion nomination, maybe we could make sure that creators are informed.  The template could have a spot for a "diff" showing the creator has been informed.  Justforasecond 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Justforasecond: Firstly, let me say that I have already suggested the creation of a template to deal with this (see below) however I am not a "techie" so I can neither follow your technical jargon let alone put it into effect. Thanks. IZAK 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's time to raise the profile of this issue, so that at least Admins can be aware of it and they should be the ones to ask and ensure that the original editors have been informed before they finally zap an article or category. I must say the guys over at Images and media for deletion have been very good at this over the last year or two. I used to complain to them in the olden days when they just came along and zapped things without notice, and at least now they have their fancy templates with warnings they put on users' talk pages that either you get the copyright info on a picture or it's gotta go. We need that same level of efficiency and accountabilty all around, otherwise a lot of people will be getting madder and madder as time rolls on. Take care. IZAK 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

end moved comments

I don't remember ever informing anyone that I have deleted, proded or AFD'd an article they created. It seems to me to go against the spirit of WP:OWN. I might in circumstances where I was nominating for deletion an article which I was sure had been created by an inexperienced but well-intentioned user and to which there were no other significant contributors, but those cases are few and far between for all sorts of reasons. The Land 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Allow to illusrate a common action of 'informing' the creator of a prod on an article:


 * Article is prodded
 * Creator informed.
 * Creator removes prod tag with no explanation shortly after.
 * Article sent to AfD.
 * Unanimous, save for occasionally the article creator, to delete the article.
 * Sometimes:
 * AfD tag is removed expecting the same action as the removal of the prod tag.
 * A slew of sockpuppets attack the AfD discussion.
 * Article deleted.
 * And sometimes:
 * Creator goes to DRV
 * near-unanimously at AfD

This is very common with vanity-style articles that don't meet A7 criteria. Why clog AfD for really obvious vanity? For this, I'm very against forced informing of the creator of an article for proposed deletion, AfDs already crazy workload would go up like mad. Kevin_b_er 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where this discussion seems to have startedUser_talk:ThuranX. CovenantD 07:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that it 'started' there so much as he put the first iteration of his Wiki-wide posting there. I'm not happy about it, either. However, I must take responsibility for this. I put two categories that IZAK apparently helped create up for renaming. The categories were Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 7 to Category:Judeo-Islamic topics and Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 20 to Category:Judeo-Christian topics. I followed the CfD(rename) procedure on the page properly. The debates were open for a reasonable length of time. the first had more discussion than the second, since the topic had been covered. IZAK took offense that I didn't wade through the history to figure out what editors were the 'creators'. I didn't think I had to, as per WP:OWN, which has already been brought up. ThuranX 02:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I usually do the following:
 * When nominating for speedy, I don't inform the creator, unless when it is a copyvio, or when I feel that it looks like a contributor wants to make good articles but has chosen the wrong subject (a rare occurrence with speedyable articles). Speedied articles are most of the times so blatant, and so little work has been put into them, that I don't think I should put more work in the speedy than the creator did in his article.
 * When giving a proposed deletion, I always inform the creator. A proposed deletion is usually not clear cut like a speedy, and since there is no discussion and no outside input apart from the nominator and the eventual closing admin, I feel that informing the creator is a good way to get at least one other person (probably wanting to keep the article) involved, so he has the chance to defend the article and provide sources and so on.
 * When nominating for AfD, I normally don't inform the creator. Often it had been prodded and the creator removed the prod, in which case he should keep on following the article in his watchlist, and in which case he was aware of the reasons for deletion and had the chance to do something about it; in some cases it goes straight to AfD. In either case, AfD is an open debate where many people can give their input. most cases are so clear cut that it is not really relevant if the creator or main contributors are involved. Watching Newpages is already a huge task, and every additional step to be taken may well mean that more articles will be kept that have no place on an encyclopedia. Keep it simple and fast to nominate things: if people on the AfD think that extra input from the creator of an article may be useful, they can still contact him or her. Fram 08:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice to author(s) has always been a courtesy, not a requirement. Its good to do, but in no way needed to assure a fair deletion process. There are more than enough people picking apart AFD listings as it is, we don't need another requirement here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you guys should *always* inform the creators that their work is being deleted. If it was vandalism, I'd skip the couresy. However, by not informing the main editors of that article, you are not giving proper chance for the CSD, AfD, or whatever, to be contested - or reasons to be given on their behalf. In my opinion, many administrators on wikipedia think that their time is an order of magnitude more important than other editors - and so courtesy is left to the wind. Fresheneesz 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion: I generally inform the creator on A7 and G8 speedies (A7 due to the hope I'm wrong, G8 to stop them doing it again), and debates where the creator may help to explain what's going on (for instance, an apparently worthless category or template). Usually, I don't inform on newly created articles being AfDd or prodded unless the article is quite old; in such cases, if the creator doesn't even bother to check back within five days, the article probably isn't worth much anyway. I do inform if I think there is a resonable chance of the creator !voting delete (it happens). --ais523 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should basically be good enough to persuade people of their merits of themselves. All the relevant information should already be in the article. There should be no need for anyone to 'defend' them. The Land 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a long discussion so I appologize if my point has already been made. If someone created a page, and cares about what happens to it, it will default to their watch-list unless they decide to turn it off. Since the procedure indicates that an edit should contain "nom for deletion" if it is tagged, I would think that the creator, if they care about the article should already be watching it (if they don't want it deleted, they probably don't want it vandalized either, which involves watching). That's just my personal opinion. TheHYPO 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The only people who nominators should be obligated to contact are the article's owner(s). Everyone else is a courtesy.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "it will default to their watch-list" - most newbs don't know about that watch list - and some, like me, hardly ever use it. Fresheneesz 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you trying to make. Watchlists are a far better alternative to notifying every potentially involved person in the case of a *fD. If you choose not to use a tool that is available to everyone, that does not mean other editors must manually alert you to significant developments in content you are concerned about. It's similar to asserting that one is free to not sign comments because other editors should be reading the talk page history anyways. As far as new editors go, I don't expect the newbies have that much difficulty remembering what few if any articles they've created. The fact remains that the suggestion to notify editors involved is a noble one, but one which is not suitable for mandatory deletion policy.  Big Nate 37 (T) 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, the Getting Started tutorial doesn't actually tell newbies about the watch list (it's under the top 10 power tools, but that doesn't really help a newbie), so having the power tool tips be in the getting started may be a good idea? ColourBurst 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you put a link up to the getting started tutorial? I don't recall seeing it. FWIW, I started using the watchlist because it's linked at the top of the window between my preferences and my contributions and has a checkbox under the edit summary.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Should be at Help:Contents/Getting_started. It is in the tips section, but again, a new editor wouldn't go through the tips section meticulously.  ColourBurst 01:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a case-by-case thing. There's obviously no reason to nominate the creator for an attack or vandalism page, a string of random text, or whatever. The point of CSD is a lightweight process for eradicating obviously useless material. For material that a user might reasonably believe would be an appropriate addition, it's more appropriate to warn them properly. This would apply I would think to many PRODs and A7 CSDs. AfDs of older articles usually affect more experienced editors and so would be caught by the watchlist. Deco 06:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

IHNMTS except that any serious and good contributor puts the pages they care about on their Watchlist and checks it regularly. I guess I appreciate a notice, but frankly, the boilerplates get tedious when, for example, someone puts up a handful of your pictures. Assuming submitters are good about adding indicative summaries in these cases, my WL should do just as good a job as a bunch of impersonal templates on my talk page. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Contacting related projects using a bot

 * Can a bot be written to contact the related project and leave a message on the talk page. These days, many projects are embracing project banners for WP1.0. The bot can look at the project banner and find the project's talk page or a sub-page (deletion sorting page) under the project and add a comment about the prod. Vandalism bots are already doing this kind of reporting. Can something similar be done with AFD and PROD reporting too? (following is optional) I am thinking further, let us say, the talk page has not been tagged yet with a banner. Bot can look at words in the article to decide which project to contact. For example, If it finds India in the article, it will contact India project. Please comment on this. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a very nice idea. It would give the projects, which may have additional insight into the matter at hand, a better chance of responding.--Bookandcoffee 05:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Contacting last 10 editors using a bot

 * Similar to what I mentioned above, a bot can find the last 10 editors of an article and contact them with PROD and AFD messages. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Namespace Deletion Policy
I'm curious if articles in the Project Namespace are susceptible for deletion. The reason I ask is regarding WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Calendar. I just don't see the purpose of having a birthday calendar on Wikipedia. Figured I'd ask around for precedent before I do something not permitted. JPG-GR 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Project namespace pages are generally within the jurisdiction of Miscellany for deletion. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Time elapsed since creation
I think that an article should exist for awhile before being nominated for deletion. People need to have some time to add to an article before being nominated for deletion. There should be something in the policy about checking the date of creation. --Gbleem 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A ten to thirty minute maturing period would be a good idea for some types of speediable content like those articles lacking a claim of notability, but extra wait is undesireable for attack pages and vandalism. Oh, I assume you specifically mean articlespace? Redirects probably wouldn't get more "content" contributed to them if left for a few more minutes before being deleted.  Big Nate 37 (T) 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on the article. Some deserve to be deleted ASAP. But yes, an article which is a small stub, but where the creator is still working on (doing it in multiple saves) and is immediately tagged as speedy delete one minute after creation. That's way too fast. I've seen it once where the editor gave up after the hangon tag and was never seen on wikipedia since. Garion96 (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This gets brought up a lot. There are problems with it, though:  First, a significant percentage of the articles that get deleted come straight out of newpage patrol.  The ability to tag pages for some form of deletion straight off of special:newpages is essential to newpage patrolling; often there's nothing else that would call such a page to anyone's attention for a long while after it falls off of that list.  This often results in people making many edits to articles that will plainly never be encyclopedic, causing far more bad blood when the article is eventually found and deleted than it would have caused if it was deleted back when it was just three lines.  Second, requiring newpage patrollers to note obvious deletion candidates as they appear and then go back to nominate them thirty minutes later is a much bigger ball of red tape than you might think it is; it's hard enough to keep an eye on newpages as it is.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, for prods and AfDs the thirty-minute delay being suggested here is meaningless when compared to the five days articles spend in those processes before actually being deleted; while speedies are supposed to be non-contestable and without salvagable content. Anything that anyone would have added in the thirty-minute 'grace' period being suggested here could still be added at any time during the relevant five days; AfD is usually quite good about coping with that. --Aquillion 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Some relative effort metric?
One thing that bothers me about the deletion process which I have seen with respect to many pages is the relatively easy deletion of pages that have been constructed with much work. It seems like most of the pages that are deserving of deletion are the opposite, for example company marketing information usually comes in one quick post from a single source and has no references or discussion, but then wikipedians must coordinate to get the stuff deleted. When pages that multiple contributors have worked hard on are removed after only a quick discussion and some clicks it seems unjust and like some more--more notifications, more time, something--should be required.

Those who are most interested in deleting understand the five day limit works in their favor and set up deletions at late weekend or early weekday times to avoid real review of their actions. Causual deleters are currently running amok on wikipedia. It does not seem right that hard work should be easy to delete, especially without interacting with contributors. There should be some kind of handshake process where by the creators are notified and have a real opportunity to respond. The case of pages that have been labored over is different from the majority of spam that needs to be deleted. -- M0llusk 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See a couple of sections up, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy].  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)