Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Draft

This page is unlikely to become policy if it attempts to both change policy and combine pages at once. Multiple archive pages of talk for the attempt to combine WP:V and WP:NOR reached the conclusion that if the new page were to become policy it would need to start by just being a better wording and structure for existing policy, not by changing policy at the same time. I recommend this approach here.

An attempt to change and combine at the same time will likely founder by getting opposition both from those that object to the change and from those that object to the combination. GRBerry 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. This draft does not attempt to change policy, just to remove some of the redundant wording (because you don't do a merge by copy/pasting the lot :) ). If you see anything that implies a change, please point it out and/or edit it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting content
Not bad. I think you may need to clarify one sentence... You start the second paragraph by saying: "Only administrators can perform deletion;" This is true if we are talking about deleting an entire article... but in the previous paragraph you state:  "Reasons for deletion include ... content not attributed to a reliable source..." Any editor can delete content that is not attributed. Yes, they should raise the issue on the talk page first and flag the content with a tag... but if there is no response to the request, the material can eventually be deleted without involving an admin. I would ammend the sentence to read:


 * "Only administrators can perform an article deletion;"

Thanks, Blueboar 13:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories
I believe that prod is never to be used for categories. AFAIK, categories may be speedily renamed (for various reasons), but not speedily deleted outside of CfD. (Though I believe they may be speedily deleted once listed at CfD.)

Due to the complication of categories (for example, they can't be "moved" like articles/project pages/templates/user pages/ talk pages/etc), perhaps merging categories to this page might be "too much"? Instead, having a single page dealing with category deletion, renaming, and merging might be a better idea, with a short paragraph and a link on this page? - jc37 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable point. I suggest we start without the cat policy, and when we're done with this part consider if it's worthwhile to add that in as well.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD, WP:PROD
Do you think material from these pages should also be included here? --Random832 13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * CSD no, because it's too long and specific. PROD, yes. PROD is very simple and could easily be included here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Radiant. CSD has too much specific content, we should simply link to it as we already have. WP:PROD could probably be merged in. There's not very much content there that isn't already here. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
The copyvio section needs work to account for db-copyvio; explain that permission to use a work on wikipedia or for non-commercial use isn't good enough; etc. Copyright Problems has some explanation of the current process. --Random832 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review
There is currently a major discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review about the appropriate role and decision standards at deletion review. This was triggered in part because the ArbComm was unable to articulate the role of deletion review. I've updated to come closer to the current status. Undeletion policy may fluctuate slightly, this should be checked against that again when the page is closer to being ready to go live. GRBerry 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives to deletion
Shouldn't "Editing" be listed first, as that should really be the preferred route? --Dweller 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll do it. --Dweller 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for doing it. --Dweller 12:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Length versus depth
Hi Radiant,

I prefer the format of this page over Deletion policy and want to commend you for your effort to advance a more efficient design. However, I have a few comments.

First, I would recommend against merging WP:PROD here. Although WP:PROD is shorter than WP:AFD or WP:CSD, I think it should still have its own page: although I feel the principles behind prodding are simple, it may not be so for new users.

Second, I would recommend against merging WP:CDP here. The CDP process is unique from the article deletion process (e.g., no prodding, different closure mechanism, etc.) and I feel to merge it here while maintainig that distinction would unnecessarily lengthen this page.

Third, I also do not think WP:UNDEL should be completely merged here. Although I agree that there is a degree of overlap between it and WP:DEL, WP:UNDEL provides unique information on image undeletions, restoring pages, and closing debates.

I feel that to include them would unnecesarily overcomplicate this page and partially defeat the purpose of a more concise WP:DEL. If you are not fundamentally opposed to these three suggestions (essentially to limit the scale of this project to producing a more efficient and clearer WP:DEL page, without fully merging other pages into it), I would like to see this page (or, rather, a slightly revised version of it) replace WP:DEL. Please let me know and I may be tempted to make a tweak or two myself ;)

Cheers, Black Falcon 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not suggesting that WP:UNDEL or WP:CDP not ever be merged, just that they not be merged for now until a design for WP:DEL is agreed on. -- Black Falcon 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with all three of the above suggestions. DGG 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Losing information by losing the tables
As the edit summary of this edit says, this proposed merged version of the policy does not contain information that is in the original policies. Uncle G 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting point. Whether the table is better than a list is a matter of taste, of course. Also, the deletion policy is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of cleanup templates, hence the link to the actual exhaustive list. Is there anything else that people think is missing?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not principally opposed to a prose version. I simply reverted (and the same issue exists with this draft) because the change not only altered the style of the section, but also its some of its content.  -- Black Falcon 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is fine, but it was not my intent to alter the content (apart from that, as I said, it's not the place of this policy to give an exhaustive list of cleanup templates). Could you please indicate what you would like added, and/or edit this draft to fix that?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the table once more and made some improvements. Is it better the way it is now? I believe everything is covered except for "annoying user" (which has absolutely nothing to do with deletion in the first place) and the various lines for "inappropriate categories can be deleted, and so can inappropriate templates, and so can inappropriate this and that".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing category
I just came here through the talk page of WP:PROG, and the first thing I noticed was that the page is uncategorized. This is rather embarrassing. &mdash;davidh.oz.au 11:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a draft. At the bottom are two categories and a host of interwiki links, commented out for the time being.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Difference
Every deletion process uses daily log pages, and put the closing template (cfd top etc) under the section header, except
 * DRV uses a different style of closing template that requires parameters
 * AFD / MFD use a log page per nominated page, and put the closing template above the section header
 * IFD does not appear to use closing templates period.

 &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now live
At WP:DEL. Comments welcome.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)