Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.


27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
34, 35, 36 37 38
39 40

Deletion by Notability. Dead end of Wikipedia[edit]

Deletionist hunts for less notably topic while every major topic is written for long. What are Wikipedians going to write? There are bots hunting for articles everyday. It might be inactive, less references or else. The ones who propose deletion know nothing about the topic but mechanically label it non-notable. They do no research on the topic they are deleting. I am tired of arguing for nothing beneficial. I am tired of defensing these articles, but let them delete anyway. Not every country is native in English and regional topics might grow only in sparse fashion. These deletion hampers regional topics from visible and eliminate the possibility to gather critical mass for article improvement.

Can I propose a line in deletion policy?

Do your research and prove it non-notable (or other reasons) before propose a deletion request.

HenryLi (Talk) 04:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The burden of demonstrating notability is on the person seeking to include the information not the person trying to remove it. It is illogical to ask someone to prove a negative. There are 7 days given to each deletion debate to demonstrate notability. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment  WP:Notability is a guideline.  It is our core content policy WP:V verifiability to which WP:BURDEN applies.  WP:V verifiability is the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  WP:Notability is a test to determine if a topic has attracted enough attention from the world at large over a period of time to merit a standalone article, as compared with a lesser role in the encyclopedia within a larger topic.  Deletion for wp:notability is an exception case that requires two conditions: (1) the topic is non-notable, and (2) there is currently no suitable larger topic within which to maintain any of the WP:RS material from the article.  We do not assume the bad faith of a topic's notability.  Every editor who posts at AfD is advised that a discussion guideline is available.  Notability nominations have the responsibility to provide evidence using induction, or inductive proof, that the topic is not notable.  This specifically normally includes evidence of a search on Google books and Google newspapers.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Pages with delete logs[edit]

@Lucas Thoms, Masem: If a page on Wikipedia has been deleted by another admin/bureaucrat, it replaces the delete log as above entry with a delete summary above! Am I correct with this one? --Allen talk 04:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@AllenHAcNguyen: this page is for discussion about improvements to this Wikipedia page. It is not the proper place for general discussions about the topic. —LucasThoms 04:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion[edit]

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.


Cirt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

see my response here - terrible violation of AGF. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Jytdog, for expressing your opinion. Please keep in mind this essay specifically refers to the act of Gutting an article in the timeframe directly before or during an ongoing deletion discussion. — Cirt (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes[edit]

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gaming the 3 panel admin selection process for controversial AfD closures[edit]

Hello, I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I'm trying to follow WP:BOLD by writing here. As I understand it the process for choosing admins when a panel is required for a controversial AfD closure is that a concerned user lists the AfD as controversial on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, then the first 3 uninvolved admins to come along put their hands up for the panel (then go off and follow standard operating procedure on the AfD). It occurs to me that this leaves room for gaming the system. Namely that a biased user involved in the AfD (whose made friends with a couple of admins) might come along and message those admins (via whatever means necessary) to let them know the notice is going up (and hence let them put their hands up the quickest), allowing the panel to be rigged. I wouldn't cast any aspersions on Wikipedia's admin approval process (or on WP:UNINVOLVED, but I do accept that everyone is human and that humans can have strong views on controversial subjects (and that those views are sometimes apparent in edits/discussions). I was just looking for there to be some discussion on other possible methods of selection (perhaps a minimum number of admins putting their hands up, then the selection being randomized algorithmically?). It just seems like that would put another (better) layer on the swiss cheese model - and a layer that might be needed considering panels tend to result from already controversial/publicity prone subjects. Thank you for your time, and if I've put this in the wrong place, feel free to delete it and let me know what I'm doing wrong. --Jobrot (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)