Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See also:

re fluff[edit]

I restored "fluff", because I think it's fair to give attribution to the document we're quoting, and I think the aside, while non-essential, is a helpful one. I care modeately more about the former, though I don't have a terribly strong opinion on either.

How to rename categories[edit]

I tried to fix spelling with {{Category redirect}}[1], but no pages were recategorized by bots in 5 days and the destination category was eventually deleted as CSD C1. What is wrong? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rough consensus[edit]

I want to propose a clarification to Rough consensus, for the case when an administrator uses underlying policy in addition to anything said at a discussion when closing it.

There are cases where the instructions provided by policy are ambiguous or offer several possible courses of action for the situation at hand. In such cases, an Administrator who wants to apply a policy that was not mentioned in the discussion should refrain from closing the discussion, and should instead introduce the argument for that policy as a participant. This will allow the other participants to assess the weight of that policy as it applies (or not) to the situation.

I think this addition is in the spirit of the consensus building and dispute resolution policies, as it regards all participants as equals, and reduces the possibility that administrators will perform a supervote placing their opinion above everyone else's. Diego (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion is not clean up[edit]

Rough consensus currently says, "A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies", with the implication that an article that "violates" a policy must always be deleted.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but this isn't true, and it isn't reflective of our actual practices. We don't use deletion as a means of cleaning up a POV article or one that needs to have more sources added. We do delete pages that violate WP:Copyrights, but that isn't really a "core content policy" anyway: it's a legal policy. Should this be redrafted to more correctly reflect actual practice, or is this not-quite-exactly-right exaggeration here to solve a problem (e.g., to deal firmly with unfounded complaints by people who are upset about a well-deserved deletion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the following sentence, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions" serves to make clear that the implication you mention is an unwarranted one.--Elvey (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

For example, my recent edit makes it so that the guideline indicates that a simple template that serves a community of editors (such as a wikiproject) well should not be deleted on the basis of redundancy unless some buy-in from that community has been achieved. Less redundancy at the price of less usability, complexity or comprehensibility is generally a poor tradeoff. --Elvey (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)