Wikipedia talk:VfD decisions not backed by current policies

This page was originally proposed on the mailing list


 * Note that a number of related suggestions were rejected earlier this year.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy
 * Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion
 * Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Deletion_criterion_boxes

Where in deletion policy does it say anything about keeping pages in defiance of VfD consensus? As I read the policy, any page can be deleted with a VfD, and there is no policy covering what can and cannot be listed and what reasons people can and can't have for deletion. Snowspinner 22:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why does the VfD process page state that "every sysop should also read and understand deletion policy" if that page has no bearing on decisions? Why does it insist that " "rough consensus, meaning that the large majority of those who care must agree" and not simply those voting on VfD? Every larger poll and discussion over notability has failed to reach consensus on the issue, so saying that "the large majority of those who care" agree non-notable items should be deleted is clearly false.


 * I agree people are permitted to list anything on VfD, but what is the point of having policies if they can be disregarded by simply having five users vote one way in a VfD debate? I believe this page is a useful compromise.  These articles have been found to not meet a hypothetical notability requirement, and if such a requirement is ever implemented they can be deleted.  Until such time as notability becomes a reason to exclude articles from Wikipedia they can wait here. - SimonP 23:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Deletion policy says nothing about the reasons for deletion on VfD. It does, however, say "At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" (what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus") has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed." And I think the "those who care" is fairly clearly meant to mean "those who vote." Snowspinner 23:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that I am exploiting a lot of grey areas in the deletion policy to create something that was not originally intended by the framers, but I do think something like this is needed. In the past those who care might have been those who voted, but this not longer is the case.  For example there does not seem to be any consensus that articles on schools should be deleted among those who care about the subject.  There was a specific discussion on schools at  Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools, they have also been addressed at Importance, and What's in, what's out all of which found no consensus to delete schools.  Yet among the much smaller group of people who vote on VfD they still sometimes get enough votes to be deleted. - SimonP 00:11, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Which I take to mean that there is no consensus to delete schools prima faciae, but sometimes consensus to delete individual schools. This doesn't bother me. Snowspinner 00:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Deletion policy lists the following reasons for deleting articles:


 * Original research
 * Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases.
 * Vanity page
 * Advert or other spam
 * No potential to become encyclopedic
 * Completely idiosyncratic non-topic


 * There are no other reasons for deleting articles. (There are reasons for deleting things other than articles, such as images, categories and redirects, as well as moving articles, but these are the only reasons policy accepts for deleting articles.)


 * One of the reasons most commonly given for deleting articles is "non-notable." Before listing this as a reason, however, users should carefully note that Wikipedia:Deletion policy does not support this as a reason for deleting articles. And before deleting any article, the administrator should carefully read the reasons users gave in support of deleting it. Any time an administrator deletes an article for the reason "non-notable," he or she is violating Wikipedia policy.


 * Moreover, administrators should carefully evaluate claims presented in votes. If a user voted for deletion claiming that an article is "original research," the administrator should read the article, read the definition of "original research," and determine whether the claim is valid. Likewise, if the claim is "vanity" or "advertising" or any other reason that policy supports, the administrator should determine whether the claim is true before deleting the article. The administrator who deletes the article is responsible and accountable for upholding Wikipedia policy. Fg2 00:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * That list absolutely cannot be taken to be exhaustive. It is in a table entitled "Problems that may require deletion." It makes no claims towards being an exhaustive list of reasons an article might be deleted, because such a list would be, for one thing, dumb. Snowspinner 01:39, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Now I'm confused. I thought that was the policy page. If there's a more comprehensive policy somewhere else, I'd like to take a look at it. Fg2 01:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the may means that such articles might or might not be deleted, not that the reasons might or might not be a valid. - SimonP 01:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course - but it says nothing about "these are the only valid reasons." Just that those reasons are valid. Snowspinner 03:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

The fact is that "notability" in vfd discussions is always used as shorthand for at least one of the above reasons for deletion, but often more. In other words, we are following accepted deletion policy when we give "nonnotable" as a reason for deletion, as I explain below. I think User:SimonP has gotten too caught up in the form by which we express this, rather than paying attention to the underlying substance. I can't think of an example in which a vfd finding of "nonnotable" would not translate into one of these elaborated reasons from the posted deletion policy. Postdlf 21:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "Original research" covers nonnotable intangible or intellectual subjects&mdash;some individual trying to spread his concept or theory, such as neologisms, one-person religions and sociological theories, all of which I have seen get appropriately shot down as nonnotable on this basis. Note that No original research states that "all of the above constitute acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape."  Notability, as we have used it, is a very good shorthand for this requirement.
 * "Vanity" pages covers nonnotable people and nonnotable personal accomplishments. Otherwise, if a vanity posting was about a notable subject, they could be cured by being NPOV'd rather than deleted, and it would also be likely that they wouldn't have to write about themselves.  Look at these problems listed on Vanity page: "The subject matter is not well-known enough [i.e., notable] for there to be multiple contributors."  "Vanity pages almost always lack interesting content. 'Bob Publicas was born on April 6, 1969 and is a toilet repairman' is highly interesting to Mr. Publicas, but not to anyone else."  This seems to be saying that to be interesting is not to be mundane or ordinary, but to have done something notable.  I think vanity pages could also be reasonably interpreted to include "civic vanity", or overcoverage of nonnotable local features by a resident.  ("The grassy lot at the end of my street has been empty for 20 years, since the Tayst-E-Phreez regrettably burned down.  Local children love to play games of tag in the lot.")  This would also fit under "no potential to become encyclopedic", however, or even under the exclusion of mere travel guide trivia under What Wikipedia is not #23.
 * "Advert or other spam" covers nonnotable companies and products, along the same reasoning as vanity pages. Adverts about notable subjects are obviously cured by NPOV editing.  The distinction must be that the company or product is uninteresting and/or not well known enough, as above with vanity pages.
 * "No potential to become encyclopedic" is a catch-all for nonnotable subjects in general. For example, if the only information that can be written about a school is pretty much their address, then they really aren't capable of being the basis for an article.  In other words, subjects whose nonnotability means that it is unlikely any useful information (or any information, period) could be found or written about them would fit under this.  "McDonald's Store No. 2488 is a McDonald's franchise on Riverside Drive in Boise, Idaho.  High school dropout Terry Schmiegle is its manager.  The milkshake machine tends to break when Schmiegle forgets to ensure that it has been cleaned at the end of every shift.  For a week in May of 2001, the drive-thru line was prone to backing up during lunch hour due to staffing problems, but this has since been solved.  Store No. 2488 has only one unisex restroom."  While this would likely be original research as well, it would quite rationally be considered without potential to be encyclopedic because of how trivial the subject is and how useless the information is.  In other words, nonnotable.
 * Concur with Postdlf. Radiant_* 15:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Schools
move from project page
 * These are incorrectly listed here as far as I can tell. Please could you clarify.


 * Template:School: "Articles about these schools are typically discouraged on Wikipedia" ... "the article might be listed for deletion."
 * Importance "This is a proposed policy."
 * Deletion policy: Suggested: use Template:School for a gentler notice than Template:VFD (my emphasis)
 * 22:41, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)


 * I think the most important item relating to schools is Deletion policy that states explicitly that "articles on non-notable schools" are a "problem that doesn't require deletion". As I see it Template:School was a little used compromise that said that schools may be discouraged and may in the future be deleted, but are currently to be kept. - SimonP 23:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. well that bit's now been deleted from the policy.  Mozzerati 19:48, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Undeleting these pages
Undeleting pages which have been deleted because of VfD consensus, without the pages having gone through Votes for Undeletion, is a serious breech of consensus and could lead to the sysop who does so being blocked from editing. RickK 07:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Where does it say any article can be deleted with a VfD consensus? The deletion policy and deletion guidelines for administrators state that consensus must be among everyone who cares, not just everyone who votes. - SimonP 07:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to find these mysterious other people, who don't seem to make an appearance for themselves. Ambi 08:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you object to running a poll on the merits of this page? It would ask "Should some mechanism exist for blocking the deletion of pages when the decision to delete is not based in any current Wikipedia policy?"  Or feel free to propose an alternate wording. If the majority says no then I will personally delete this page and all the articles upon it.  The second half of the poll could then be what on what mechanism for achieving this would be best.  I do think that for any poll it would be useful for Wikipedians to be able to read examples, but you may disagree. - SimonP 08:37, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course - I'm happy to abide by any popular consensus, but as it would be a significant policy change, I'd also expect to see it follow the same criteria for success as the failed Managed Deletion proposal, and for it to be as widely advertised. Ambi 09:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be clear to everyone that until such a policy change be approved, the policies already in place must be followed, and so this could not be used to counter vfd consensus deletions until then. Postdlf 21:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This problem should be solved by not deleting the affected pages (if any) in the first place - not by deleting them and undeleting afterwards. Radiant_* 14:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

See VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll for a proposed poll on some of the issues raised by the creation of this page. - SimonP 17:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)