Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Archives

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/2002 Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/2003 Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects Various from Village pump Sept 2003 Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title November 2003 – October 2004 October 2004 – December 2004 December 2004 – August 2005 August 2005 – June 2006 July 2006 - September 2006

---

Deletion Reform

I believe that moderators are abusing their power to delete pages. For instance, there is a moderator that is racist against anything non=Japanese, who deletes anime pages simply because he doesn't think they are "Japanese" enough. In actuality, there are several like this, but the one I'm talking about is Farix. He voted to delete the article for an anime fansite just because he didn't think it was Japanese enough. I think that mods should have to give legitimate reasons for deleting something, not just personal feelings. Just like in articles, there should be a requirement to cite sources. I've been going to Wikipedia for a while now, and I'm starting to lose my faith in it.

A7 and G11

A discussion to fix a problem w/A7 and G11 is going on at the speedy deletion talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested change to policy

What would be the best wording for this, and if there is no strenuous objection I will endeveour to write this up and add it: during AfD process, there are many articles which are being deleted based on apparent local political biases or flavoring, or perhaps personal biases or lack of knowledge. For example, if a given John H. Smith is written about in "multiple, non-trivial sources" currently he is considered notable. However, I see that on my AfDs, especially of a biographical nature in particular, or related to films and books, such articles are routinely deleted simply due to the weight of people saying "non-notable", or via saying "per nom, nn", and so forth, despite the fact that the individuals meet the simple key requirement. I believe that AfD process needs to adhere to and serve the other policies which determine who merits inclusion--not supercede them.

So, in short, the requested and I feel needed change is simply one that says, unequivically: calls/comments/"not votes" by any user to delete must be bases in stated policy. We should not delete simply for not liking something, nor create an article for simply liking something. If no one can demonstrate why this change is bad I shall make it in several days. · XP · 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is up to the editor to make sure that a given article meets all policies and guidelines; the nominator/AfD participant does not have to help make it conform to those policies and guidelines. Given that, why should a !voter have to go out of their way to describe their reasoning? --Aaron 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To start, the various nobility critiera (ie WP:BAND, WP:BIO and WP:CORP) are guidelines and not policies dispite what User:XP states. As guidelines, the headers state, "is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (italics mine). As such the community consensus could be to include an article that does not meet any of the given criteria as well as delete an article that does meet one of the criteria. I agree that a nomination simply stating "non-notable" without referencing a specific guideline is poor, it does not negate the nomination and the reasoning underlying it. I do not have any issue with people stating, "as per nom" because there sometime is nothing more to say. Sometimes the differences of opinion on an article come down to disagreements on the definition of "multiple, non-trivial sources" or "two albums". I currently see no need to change the deletion policy.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia it there to tell people things they don't know. Therefore if everyone were allowed to vote to remove what they don't know there wouldn't be any encyclopedia (ie. it would only include what most people already know). Like the encyclopedia deletion should be based on evidence rather than predi-juice. --Mike 09:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Romantisicim

Ok i dont even know wat that means.romanti wateva--4.244.36.133 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Scrap the deletion policy!

I would like to make a proposal to scrap the deletion policy.

1. Any deletion is an attack on the writer
2. Deletion notices are being used too quickly with too little information

Instead Wikipedia should change to having a "Improvement Policy" where deletion is a consequence of a failure to find a way to improve the article to an acceptable standard. I know to hardened hacks they may not understand the difference but let me give a simple example. A student starts an article on their favourite pop-star. When they come back would it be better to find:

A) Your article is worthless and will be deleted in 5 days. B) Your article is not up to standard and must be improved within 5 days.

Obviously that's not exactly what is written but that is how it may be interpreted. Moreover, I don't know whether it is me, but when if I am editing an article with a huge "DELETE" notice it is totally demoralising and everytime I see it, it tells me "don't waste your time editing this rubbish - go and do something better with your time".

Ask yourself is the policy intended to delete articles or improve Wikipedia Is deletion the aim of the policy or an unforunate outcome that results from not abiding by the improvement procedures?

RfD: RfI

Articles for deletion: Articles Requiring Improvement

Speedy delete: An action that takes place either: as a result of failing to abide by the improvement policy, or where it is considered that it is impossible for the article to abide by the improvement policy!

--15:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My own self-proclaimed bias will be fully evident, but here goes. I believe that without a deletion policy (your header calls for scraping it) Wikipedia would become un-usable and full of spam and crude. The arguments you provide are more along the lines of modifying the process and I am all for building consensus to do that. Be aware there is nothing that can be put into place that would deal with a person's interpretation that once a notice is placed they shouldn't "waste [their] time editing this rubbish". While I believe in not biting the newbies, I also believe that the first thing that someone does when they sign up should not be write an article. Take the time to learn about the environment. Here is an analogy: If you were hired in a new managerial job, it would be foolish to take big steps or actions on your first day. Get a feel for the place before making big changes. I am making the comparison to writting an artile about yourself, your business, your favourate garage band etc as a big change.

Now I know that many people either browse/edit anonymously before signing up or sign up and wait before trying their hand at a article; as such, these users are less likely to run into issues with deletion of an article. As a new page patroller, I am very likely one of the class of people you claim are "to quick to delete", be aware that as an editor, I can only suggest such action, I can not implement a deletion, only admins do. That being said, the community has already, or is attempting to, reach a consensus as to what is considered notable, see WP:BIO, WP:BAND, WP:ORG. Most editors on new page partol are simply applying these guidelines to new articles. It is usually much easier to locate non-notable entries as they are created then to try to find them later. In regards to the speedy deletion criteria, I admit I have a liberal concept of what I would tag. I have been over turned by admins on some occations, but usually it is accepted. I will put forward my record of AfD nominations (see User:Gay Cdn/AFD nominations with an aproximate deletion rate of 82%) and you will see that many of the deletions were tagged first either as speedy or prod and were un-successful there either because they were disputed by the author or an admin.

Yes things could be improved, but calling for the scraping of the policy, calling people names whom you disagree with is not the way to build consensus. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability has not yet been given a rigorous definition. I've been trying to urge for one, however, see WT:N, and some proposals have come up, such as User:Uncle G/On notability, which is one I like. 70.101.144.160 06:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This would cause Wikipedia to turn into a pool of unregulated information. We could have pages titled "zzzdspfk" that contain only "sdhgfklhdlfhldsjfkjkkdlll" in them. The WP hard disks would fill up so fast it wouldn't even be funny. WP would not be Wiki Pedia = Wiki ENCYCLOPEDIA, It would be WD = Wiki Dump, as in a trash heap. It would become _useless_. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:ENC. However on second reading you don't seem to say get rid of deletion altogether, but rather to put some sort of "timer" for improvement, that the article is "on notice". This "timer" approach is interesting, indeed. Although however some articles (like the aforementioned gibberish ones) obviously cannot be given and chance and should be deleted on the spot. 70.101.144.160 06:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now if I were instead to have said Improve the policy would I have such a strong response? - It just goes to show that words do count! Let me give some examples:

How words count!

Policy	Wikipedia	More usual
Editing	Deletion Policy	Improvement Policy
Hospital	Death Policy	Resuscitation Policy
School	Mishaviour Policy	Discipline Policy
Quality	Junk Policy	Quality control

You normally have a policy with a title for the aim of the policy. A deletion policy says that the aim is to delete as much as is possible - you err on the side of deletion, not improvement! --Mike 09:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • You probably think you're making a wild and radical suggestion, but the plain truth is that what you suggest is essentially how it works already. Articles that can be improved usually are, either during the AfD process or through the use of our many improvement templates, such as {{cleanup}} and many other more-specific ones. Sometimes articles are improved right away, sometimes it takes months and months to bring them up to scratch. If you look at Category:Cleanup by month, you'll see that we have almost 19,000 articles in various stages of the cleanup/improvement process, more than 100 times the number that are currently up for deletion! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The goal is NOT "to delete as much as possible", but rather to spell out rules and guidelines as to exactly what should be deleted, how the decisions should be made, etc. That's why is called a "deletion policy", as it is the policy regarding deletion. There HAS to be some sort of policy, otherwise WP would turn into a "make & delete" free-for-all fest, not an encyclopedia. You need rules, otherwise you have anarchy, chaos, etc. 70.101.144.160 06:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

After deletion?

Hi.

I know this is going to probably sound really, really dumb, but what happens to the creator of an article that gets deleted? Do they get punished/reprimanded in some way because it failed to live up to WP standards, policy, etc.? 70.101.144.160 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound really, really dumb at all. :) There is no punitive action related to deleted articles. It is possible that an article was created as a prank/hoax/attack, or some other such nonsense - but that is a separate issue aside from actually deleting the article. Remember that articles are not "owned" in any sense at Wikipedia, and sometimes the consensus of the community may simply be different than that of one particular editor (say, the one who created the article). --Bookandcoffee 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. 70.101.144.160 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They may be sad at it being deleted though. —Centrx→talk • 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes. Of course if it was something like a test, maybe not. If it was to push their point of view, they might get angry. 170.215.83.212 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can this be changed?

Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy and not opinion.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryder's law (second nomination), someone quoted this policy to claim that a second nomination cannot be based on whether a subject is non-notable, because whether something is non-notable is an opinion.

I suggest removing the "and not opinion" clause.

The policy also says "The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion.", which implies that opinions may be involved in a second nomination, contradicting the first quote. Ken Arromdee

• The intent of the phrase is that comments like "keep, I like it" or "delete, it's boring" should not be considered. Many of our policies and guidelines involve some subjectivity in their application. Thus people may disagree whether article X is supported by guideline Y. Such opinions should not be discounted, since a main point of AFD is finding out consensus about whether some guideline applies. >Radiant< 12:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean you agree with the suggested change? Ken Arromdee 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just took it out. I'm sure any number of people would put it back in without bothering to participate in any discussion, but I'd rather they not. Ken Arromdee 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Selective enforcement

In one particular area of interest, there have been about a dozen different articles tagged with AfDs within the last few days. While the articles in question related, they are more or less independent of one another, have been around for months (in some cases over a year), and have been developed and maintained pretty much independent of one another.

Given that there are probably tens of thousands of articles at any given time that could reasonably be AfD'ed, without even looking at ones that are relatively new, it looks a little suspicious to see this many from one corner of Wikipedia getting targeted at the same time. It tends to arouse suspicion of selective enforcement, of one or two individuals going on a crusade against that particular subject.

If you think about law enforcement and any number of laws or rules that are often not followed to the letter, such as the speed limit, where full compliance and enforcement are not feasable. What kind of reaction does it usually get when it is suddenly being heavily enforced in a particular area or against specific types of people while enforcement elsewhere remains as relaxed as ever? Granted, the enforcement authorities can correctly state that they were only enforcing the law in each individual case, but such patterns of targeted enforcement usually tend to make the targeted groups feel that they're being treated unfairly.

I would contend that this sort of selective enforcement, or targeting, is a form of AfD abuse, and if there is not a policy in place to address it there should be. Application of the deletion policy should within reason be applied uniformly across all subject areas of Wikipedia and should discourage people from targeting or crusading against specific subject areas. Mwalimu59 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While I can comepletely appreciate the feeling of being targetted, the simple point for me is, are the articles nominated actually AfD candidates? The articles (which I do not know which subject they are about) must have some linkage, likely a category or contributor. I often use a category that I at least have a passing knowledge (sometimes more then passing) about and review the articles. If this category has a lot of entries that do not meet the criteria for Wikipedia - likely but not nessesarily nobility - then it is completely appropriate they be nominated. A case could actually be made that if these articles are linked in some way, it is better that they be discussed at the same time so that a consistant concensus be reached about the subject.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible (likely?) that the articles have simply been discovered because some one knowledgable volunteer chose to work through some issue and happened to find a pattern. For example, I recently started working through Category:Date of birth missing. Per the policy at WP:BLP, we should not even be asking for date of birth for many of our biographies so I am evaluating each one and removing the category where it is inappropriate. Along the way, I am reviewing a large number of biographies that have not previously had much scrutiny and discovering some that appear to fail to qualify under our generally accepted inclusion criteria. That's not the primary reason that I'm looking at the article but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't at least tag the article and ask for a second opinion. By coincidence, about half the biographies in the A and B section of that category were one-line stubs about jazz musicians. Is that "selective enforcement"? You could argue so. Am I doing it with intent to abuse the process or even with the intent to seek out jazz musicians? Not at all. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New shortcut?

Hi.

I don't know if this belongs here, I couldn't find a place for it, but I was wondering, should we have a shortcut "WP:NUKE" that redirects to Wikipedia:Deletion policy? because "nuke" can mean "delete" or "destroy", like "nuking a post" on Usenet, and somebody might type that in (I have) because they want to get to the deletion, or "nuking" policies, etc.? 70.101.147.74 20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might not be a good idea because we don't want to bite people whose content is being deleted. We had similar redirects deleted for speedy deletion templates, like {{crap}} used to redirect to one of the db templates. {{useless}} used to link to some template that said the article needed a picture, if I recall. Those were deleted for their antagonistic connotations. BigNate37_(T) 22:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How would it bite, anyway? "Nuke" is a slang for destroying things, deleting files, etc. The "{{crap}}" template does sound opinionated (the article is crap), but I fail to see how "nuke" is the same. 70.101.147.74 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nuke has some very bad connotations. We don't blow up articles. Some of us are used to using the word in a different context, but that doesn't legitimise its use as a deletion template shortcut. If you have troubles remembering template names, it might help to make a list of the ones you use the most or try to look them up at WP:TM and its subpages. BigNate37_(T) 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any sane person would believe we use nuclear bombs on articles. I can use the other shortcuts, but I like this because it's a term people do use. I, for one, have discovered new Wikipedia project pages by typing in WP:<whatever> and seeing if I get something, and I think others probably would do the same. They might guess that: "What if I want to see about deleting pages? Maybe I'll type in WP:NUKE, to see if there's anything about 'nuking' them." I did this and was dismayed it wasn't already a shortcut. I don't see why people would think "nuke" in regards to articles would have anything to do with nuclear weapons, explosives, or anything like that. People do use "nuke a post" on Usenet, you know. I don't see why a lot of people would think it has to do with blowing things up -- it doesnt't take that much intelligence to realise that this is an encyclopedia and an internet project, and thus "nuke" doesn't have to do with bombs in this context. I suggest WP:NUKE should be created, and redirect to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. 70.101.147.74 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You're either missing the fact that I never said anyone would take it literally, or you're building a straw man out of it. It's rude and condescending to use a word with a negative connotation when deleting content. That content is written by volunteers, and will frustrate some editors if people threaten to WP:NUKE their work.

Now please, take a breath and relax: I know the word has different uses and I already acknowledged that, you don't need to explain to me that its used for deletion on message boards and bulletin boards. Remember that you don't have to (and you're not going to) convince me it's not a bad idea—I have my opinion, I made it known, you asked for clarification. I tried to be more specific (and suggested a quick way to find templates), that's all good discussion. Now you're just trying to convince me that I'm wrong, and I don't appreciate it. BigNate37_(T) 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, so you have admitted that you do not want to be convinced, and that is OK. I will not attempt to force you to change it if you don't want it. I am impressed that you admitted to not wanting to be convinced or to debate, unlike some people I've argued with who don't. I guess we will just have to sort of "agree to disagree", and besides as an anonymous I can't go run off and create the thing. I didn't know if you were talking about taking it literally or not. I, personally, would still like the shortcut to exist, but that's my opinion. I guess then, for you, the debate is over, and I will accept that. I'll say the end result here is a draw. 70.101.147.74 02:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd share some final thoughts. Since now that WP:NUKE has been deleted, I'm going to say that I agree with it, considering that the evidence/support for the argument that it can offend/bite people (newbies and experienced users alike) was presented, but am a bit offed that I didn't get a chance to put those last words in the discussion before closing. I had a final question that didn't get answered, but I assume that the proof for what I asked about is implicit in the response I got to the "evidence query". If it (the RFD nom) was still open, I probably would have said either "delete or make a historical page". But since it was deleted (WP:NUKE got WP:NUKEd! He he he!), I also modified the WT:N archives to remove all WP:NUKE deadlinks. 170.215.65.35 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking

I would like to refer to Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking in the Wikipedia page. I added it [1] but was reverted, understandably, since I did not discuss the addition beforehand. Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking is currently marked as a guideline rather than policy (perhaps it should be policy [2]), but I believe it should be mentioned even if it is "only" a guideline. If the guideline is disputed, the dispute should happen on that talk page. Personally, I like courtesy blanking. I also note that courtesy blanking was instituted by Jimbo Wales. Apparently most users and even many admins don't know of courtesy blanking, so I would like to increase knowledge of the guideline. I recently stumbled upon a closed AFD where vandal patrollers were battling anons trying to blank an AFD because of unfavorable comments regarding the subject, when they could have used {{afd-privacy}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-27 07:54Z

• I've replaced the link, since it is a relevant one, and adding it does not change this policy. Only substantial changes have to be discussed first. (Radiant) 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was one of those vandal patrollers, which is how I noticed the change to policy, and the same one who reverted this addition to policy when I was unable to find any discussion of it, even as a guideline. I personally find it troubling to "accidentally" discover that wording allowing the blanking of a talk page can go from creation to guideline to policy without a single line of discussion or any awareness of the issue by the larger Wiki community. CovenantD 18:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is still tagged as a guideline, and has support from the BDFL anyways. It is helpful to take note of when discussing deletion policy, and I personally don't think that being linked to from a policy page makes this a policy—by that logic, the fair use guideline is policy as it is linked from CSD, and the Wikipedia:Publicity photos essay is a guideline (or perhaps also policy) since said fair-use "policy" links to it. Not very coherent, and I don't think that linking to Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking gives it any more "officiality" than it currently bears. BigNate37_(T) 18:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see [3] for the initial discussion on 2006-01-17 that created this. (You may find this weird, but wikien-l is considered a valid forum for discussing Wikipedia policy despite being off-wiki.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-27 21:35Z

• I remember this being discussed but don't remember exactly which page led to the recommendation. It was about the same time that we started working on the privacy clauses of WP:BLP - and might have been on that policy's Talk page. Regardless, courtesy-blanking has been an accepted practice for some time. The fact that someone finally took the time to write it down and give it a name does not suddenly make the practice controversial. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion technicality

Hi.

Technical question: Does deletion actually remove the information from Wikipedia's server's hard drives, even if not immediately, in order to free up disk space? 170.215.83.4 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With few exceptions, deleted pages are saved and viewable by admins. See Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops. In exceptional cases, individual revisions or pages may be removed from the database entirely using Wikipedia:Selective deletion. ∴ here…♠ 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that every page since "time immemorial" (just about) is still stored on the Wikipedia hard drives, just simply "deactivated" and removed from the "public" wiki? How does this thing manage to cope with all that wasted disk space? 170.215.83.4 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all deleted pages are still hogging server space, and lots of it, but it's good to know that a rogue admin can't delete the whole site without us being able to restore it... I'm not sure if it's enabled on Wikipedia, but old revisions of pages (including deleted ones) may be compressed to save space on MediaWiki installations. Also, server space isn't at all in short supply, there's plenty left, and even if we manage to use it all up, we can just get more servers :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, old revisions are compressed (and also, generally not cached); if you do some history digging, you'll note that it takes significantly longer to retrieve versions older than a certain threshold. IIRC there was a database crash early in 2004, and all deleted revisions prior to that are lost. The remainder is visible to admins, and backed up of course. If you think this approach is surprising, consider that archive.org is backing up the entire internet and is making practical use of the term "petabyte". (Radiant) 09:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So are "deleted" pages also compressed, then? Also, why call this "deletion"? Why not call it "hiding"? 170.215.83.4 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that in older versions of the software, deleted articles were in fact removed from the database. The name simply has stuck; we have that a lot. For instance, the terms "admin" and "bureaucrat" are also misnomers. (Radiant) 09:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so it's more of a "historical" thing, then, for example the word "planet" means "a wanderer" yet nowadays we know that planets do not "wander" but instead orbit in circular or elliptic paths (and the present definition has nothing to do with "wandering" at all. Although we haven't yet moved to a more accurate, more descriptive term such as "balls". 74.38.35.238 07:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Astronomy has balls! I like it already ;) (Radiant) 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

<giggles> 70.101.146.27 07:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the Deletion Policy

I would like to propose the following language be added to the Deletion policy:

If a new page does not meet all of the editors' criteria for a page, a new page will probably be deleted under a Speedy Deletion process even if it appears to have problems not associated with the Speedy Deletion criteria (prolems listed Deletion Review specifically desingated for other deletion processes). In this case, the page content will be unavailable to you immediately and there will be no recourse to recover the page contents. Futhermore, although you may be given a Deletion Review process, this process will not necessarily be in good faith of all participants nor will the contents of the original disputed document be available during this review process. Be prepared for this circumstance.

This is a more accurate reflection of my experience with Wikipedia and I would like the community to consider ammending the Deltion Policy to include this language. Jasonfb 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to stop doing this? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to take me seriously? Jasonfb 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Now, to explain the circumstances behind this to everyone else:

• User:Jasonfb's article DUMBA was deleted technically out of process.
• He has since started an RfC on both the admins who ever deleted his page.
• On the DRV he opened, he insists that the admin is lying when they claim the full article text was restored.
• He has since gone off on a tangent in the discussion to the corruptness of Wikipedia.

-Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• True. I maintain that Amarkov has stated the facts above.

• I started the RfC based on the fact that the admins deleted the page under the Speedy Deletion process while it did not qualify. I see this as an obligation I have to the community to bring this to the community attention. I believe that no one is above the law, and I was trying to test this theory here on Wikipedia. Perhaps that was a mistaken avenue, I do not know, but based on what I see on Wikipedia this was the proper avenue to go through. Since no oversight was enforced on those admins, I am proposing this change to the Deletion Policy as a way of correcting Wikipedia to more accurately reflect its true nature. I maintain that Amarkov has stated the facts above.

• The admins never made available the full contents of the page to me or to the public. I maintain this is true and since I have no access to the delete database I cannot call forth evidence to support my case. While the admins may beleive that they got the last version of the text, they did not. "Lying" is not something I accused anyone of. I dispute this claim of Amarkov's.

• The process has exposed certain hypocrasy in the system for me, yes. I am and will continue to be forthcoming about my reservations with Wikipedia. None of my bringing attention to the hypocrasy was in any way tangential to the discussions at hand. I dispute this claim of Amarkov's.

Jasonfb 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The full text of my original article was finally retreived by an adminsitrator, after asking for it for four days. Therefore, my proposed change to the Delete Policy is moot. I withdraw my proposed change to the deletion policy, although I do think someone should look at the fact that most new pages are deleted under speedy deletion when they don't meet SD criteria, so in essence the Delete Policy page says things that aren't true in practice. Jasonfb 04:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules makes provisions for speedying articles under non-criteria, albiet implicity. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, at least not intentionally. I definately agree that too many deletions are made out of process, and I also agree that some of them are errors, however I strongly disagree with adding any form of this to the deletion policy. The cynical nature of the comment coupled with the fact its proposer is basing it on an incident that happened to him/her makes for a poisonous discussion. Jasonfb, please be more tactful in the future lest you attract malignant opposition to your comments. BigNate37_(T) 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How would one categorize this deletion request?

I was doing a bit of wikignoming by removing "linkless" tags from June's orphaned article list, and came across an entry for Amado Garcia Guerrero. As it was an unsourced allegation that this person had conspired in a political assassination, I took a few minutes to do some googling. As best I can tell, this is a fictional character from the book "La Fiesta del Chivo" (The Feast of the Goat)by Mario Vargas Llosa. Guerrero does not appear to be a major character, as he is not mentioned in the article about the book. Any suggestions on how to best tag this article for deletion? Risker 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Relatively inexperienced with speedies, but {{db-nocontext}}? If not, {{prod}} then AfD? In any case, add a link to the source suggesting the fictional nature of the subject to avoid confusion with reality. ∴ here…♠ 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify for any speedy deletion criterion. Proposed deletion or AfD is the way to go. BigNate37_(T) 13:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Or, you could take a leaf out of WP:FICT's book and merge/redirect to the article on the book. (Radiant) 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a better alternative to deletion. BigNate37_(T) 14:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing Deleted Page from Contributions

I put a speedy deletion tag on an article that has sense been deleted. However, when I look at my contributions, that edit isn't there. Does anyone know how to explain this? I'm sure I'm just missing something. --Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to deleted articles don't show on contribution logs. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 15:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Deletion Process

I note that there is plenty of discussion regarding sockpuppets, but there is no discussion to people who tag things for deletion improperly. There is no balance in this aspect of the deletion process. Hypothetically, if I went wandering around and posting deletion notices on everything I laid my hands on, there is nothing demonstrable in this deletion process which would determine that I was being naughty. This should be addressed. --TaranRampersad 07:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• In this hypothetical case, you would, however, quickly be informed of WP:POINT, told to stop, your spurious nominations speedily closed per WP:CSK, and possibly have an WP:RFC started on you. AFD rampages are rare and tend to end up with the perpetrator chastised and/or blocked. Is there anyone in particular you believe to be abusing process at the moment? (Radiant) 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A few, actually. --TaranRampersad 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And what happens when pages I create for future movies (Shilpa Shetty) seem to be getting deleted just a minute after I create them? Are there a few overenthusiastic NewPage Patrollers and/or Admin with their fingers on the trigger perhaps? Or is there some other explanation for why my pages keep getting deleted a minute after creation? Ekantik ^talk 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean movies that are not released yet? "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", i.e., future events must be very well referenced with notable discussions of them. Did you provide reliable references in these pages, so that the content/notability may be verified? If yes, you may complain about the deleting admin. Mukadderat 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually get a chance to put any references because as soon as I created the pages they disappeared, heh. Beyond that, I wouldn't even know which Admin deleted the pages because there is no record, or is there? Anyhow I'll try again later. Ekantik ^talk 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's listed in Special:Log for the page. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my slowness (I didn't know how to find any Special Logs until now). I finally found the log for one of the pages I was talking about, here. Now I suspect that this is an overenthusiastic admin, and I wonder why he/she couldn't figure out that I can't expand the article without first reserving the namespace, before I proceed to edit it further and finding out it got deleted! What to do in such a situation, apart from talking it out with this admin? This type of situation is a good example of abusing the delete process, I feel, especially when I couldn't get a chance to include any references which - by the way - were not even requested on my talk page by said admin. Ekantik ^talk 05:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The admin didn't figure that out since we get over a thousand new articles per day with little or no content and sources, and most of those are not encyclopedic. In general, (see WP:NOT) we don't do articles about future films, books etc, since such articles tend to be speculative rather than factual, and quite a lot of such future projects get cancelled and never get anywhere. Of course that isn't necessarily the case here, but there was not enough information to tell the difference. What you should do is recreate it with good content and sources. (Radiant) 11:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The best course of action is to avoid making more than one save when working on an article. Save the text on your local computer if necessary as a precaution. The browser's back button allows you to go back and save your text in case of a communication problem with the server, and making more than one save in a short span means extra and unhelpful history entries. I'm not saying that the article should have been speedied if you couldn't get the references in the first edit, as that's a big can of worms someone else can deal with, I'm just saying it's best to avoid the scenario altogether. BigNate37_(T) 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice. Much appreciated. Ekantik ^talk 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion by author

I don't see any mention on this page of deletion by an article's author, e.g. by blanking the page or using {{db-author}}. I was recently told about this when I requested deletion for a template I had created but which later became obsolete. I have since found specifics on criteria for speedy deletion, but I had not proceeded to that page at the time because the description of speedy deletion on this page is quite specific:

Pages that are suitable for instant deletion, being patent nonsense or pure vandalism and which can obviously be deleted on sight (see criteria for speedy deletion)

I believe that the following would cover the matter better:

Pages that are suitable for instant deletion and which can obviously be deleted on sight (see criteria for speedy deletion; examples include patent nonsense, advertising, or pure vandalism, as well as certain housekeeping situations such as deletion by the original author)

I am reluctant to make any edits to a policy page without input from wiser heads than mine however. Trevor Hanson 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I've been bold. Rossami (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, too. I've seen a lot of XfDs filed by an author that could have been speedy'ed. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for individual dates

I thought I had seen a deletion guideline (or some previous AfD's) for articles about individual dates (e.g. February 22, 1905), but I can't seem to find it anymore. Can anyone point me in the right direction or enlighten me as to what is the consensus on such articles before I nominate some 1500 of those for deletion? 12:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• You should probably start with a dozen or so, not 1500 :) I think WP:NOT applies; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these articles are really overly specific metadata; the information is more useful in 1950 and February 22. An encyclopedia is not a calendar. >Radiant< 10:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Judgment" considered typo or vandalism?

A couple of edits were just made by User:BigNate37 and somebody at 12.216.74.107 over the spelling of the word "judgment/judgement". BigNate37 has called the former spelling both a typo and vandalism; however I must point out that both spellings are acceptable (cf. OED) and that "judgment" is preferred in the US (cf. OAD). I of course question the merits of making such a change in a stand-alone edit (editors should not capriciously change the style of articles, per MoS) but I would not classify such a change as either a typo or vandalism, any more than changing "realization" to "realisation" or vice versa. JMO. Trevor Hanson 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A case of either / or. Vandalism suggestions are probably over the top. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I looked up wikt:judgement and saw that the entry existed, and missed that the usage note mentioned the alternate spelling judgment. The v-word came about as a result of the anon user re-adding the edit without regard for the note I left on their talk page, so I used the JavaScript revert- vandalism tool (see User:VoA) and left a substituted {{verror2}} note, since it was a second-level warning (after the first which I hand-crafted to be more friendly). At the time, I thought that judgment was simply incorrect and based on that flawed knowledge I stand by my actions. For what it's worth, I use a mostly Canadian English, though that is no excuse for mistaking an alternate spelling as an error. BigNate37_(T) 02:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Process Problems

Recently, an article I started about an American blogger was nominated for deletion. Such things can happen, but this was the third time it had happened in a year. The first AfD resulted in a keep. The blogger, referenced by the Wall Street Journal's and the Nation Review's online sites, had just begun to substitute for Michelle Malkin, and thus notability was difficult to deny. The second AfD was rescinded when the nominator was informed of the first AfD. After this, I moved the article, due to the anonymous blogger becoming more popular than his now-defunct blog. His iconoclastic pseudonym, combined with his position as the primary contributor to Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, means that he is a lightening rod for criticism, hate, and, on Wikipedia, AfDs. Thus, the day most Americans' Christmas vacation began, the article received its third AfD, even though the article had changed little from its inception, only having more sources and an update as to the blogger's current prominent position. The AfD proceeded with far less attention than it would have gotten had it not been the holiday, and the timing seemed suspicious given the rightward slant of those who might defend the article (people who, I believe, would be less likely to be online during the holidays). Anyway, the lack of interest resulted in a "no consensus" result. I didn't have time to heap yet more sources onto the article — such as the Mary Mapes book — or to give it a proper defense until after I got home from vacation. In any event, while my having to add the source was a good thing, my having to repeatedly monitor this article and come to its defense has not been (and will not be). It has been, frankly, a waste of time. So I'd suggest the following:

1. Articles, even if they are moved, should be tagged as being a second/third/fourth/etc. deletion attempt. If they are improperly tagged, it should be assumed that the tagger did not realize the issue had already been discussed, and the article should be a "speedy keep."
2. There should be a limit to how many times in a certain period of time an article can be nominated for deletion. If I go in for jury duty one year, they can't call me again for a year. A similar policy makes sense for articles. It would be a very unusual circumstance that an article would be ineligible for deletion in the past but not the present. If the article deteriorated, it could always be reverted and modified from there.
3. While Wikipedia may right claim worldwide reach and 24/7/365 operation, a significant portion, if not a majority, of English-language Wikipedians will have some form of a Christmas holiday. Thus, it would be a good idea if AfDs and PRODs were not allowed in the last ten days of December except in the case of articles that were less than a month old.
4. While a blog is not a reliable source for news, notable blogs should be seen as evidence of notability of a phenomenon they cover. In addition, a newspaper's online editorial site should be seen as having the same level of reliability as its editorial pages, rather than being viewed as just another online source.
5. While I'd like to assume good faith, some Wikipedia users have openly declared "war on blogs," [4] while others have made it their duty to just get rid of as many blog-related articles as they can. While I would not ask for special protection for blog-related articles, it's important to recognize this bias.

I realize some may see these as fairly audacious suggestions considering that it's just one modest page that I've been concerned with, and, honestly, I don't expect any of them to be adopted in whole. But I do hope that there's some discussion about this that considers the flaws in the current policy, discussion that can result in something positive. Calbaer 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern but I have more faith in the community. This is a large enough group with enough international participation that we almost always get a critical mass of informed editors even during the holidays. Note please that in this case, even with all your concerns, the article was still kept. To your specific suggestions (I've changed them to numbers to make responding easier):

1. Repeat nominations should certainly be noted. The courteous way to do so is to provide a link to the previous discussions when making your nomination. That should be done regardless of whether the page was moved or not. Overriding the header is unnecessary. If the nominator does not provide the links to the previous nominations, I agree that we should assume that it was an oversight but the correct response is to provide the links to the previous discussions and to allow the current discussion to continue, not an automatic "speedy-keep".

2. The idea of a timelimit between nominations has been proposed many times before. We've rejected it each time. Any such hard limit would make it far to easy for bad-faith users to game our own rules against us. It would also put inappropriate constraints on the decision process in some circumstances. What we do instead is to shout down the premature renominations. If it really is premature, you can be sure that a significant number of participants will comment to that effect.

3. Disagree. See comments above about my faith in the scale of our community.

4 and 5. Blogs as evidence of notability and the reliability of online sources have been discussed many times and will need to continue being discussed as the social phenomenon that is blogging continues to evolve. That's probably a better discussion for WT:RS though. It's not really a question about the deletion process.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that the AfD seems to contradict many of your points:

1. If the previous AfD isn't noted near the top, people miss it or ignore it. And by the time it's noted, others have contributed to the discussion so that momentum is against those favoring "keep."

2. I do not believe that a significant number of participants will comment that renomination is premature. If I hadn't made comments to that effect and mentioned the new AfD to the fellow who closed the old AfD, no such comment would have been made. In the policy it is stated:

If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.

but there's no downside for someone who violates this policy. I would think that ignoring policy should result in your action being voided, not condoned.

3. I think the fact that there was a different result for the same nomination, with no article deterioration, indicates that this is a valid concern.

4 and 5. I agree that these aren't process questions, but they should be motivations for having a robust process.

My experience with blog-related articles is that (a) they are targets for deletion and are often successfully targeted in spite of being notable and (b) I can usually successfully defend such attempted deletions, but I don't want to defend blog articles as a full-time job. I would, for example, note the list of the top 50 political blogs (according to Alexa traffic) at [5] and see how many of these blogs have been either deleted or prodded for longer than five days. Of the top of my head, I can name Sadly, No! (#50); IMAO (#45); and Ace of Spades HQ (#14). Considering the increasing influence of blogs and the Internet in politics (see, e.g., Killian documents, the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Howard Dean), it is ridiculous that any of the top 50 U.S. political blogs can be dismissed as "non-notable." Calbaer 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A longer lag time for old, slow moving, many-authored, good-faith articles

I would like to create a new category, with a long lag time for old, slow moving, many-authored, good-faith articles. I feel that five days is a very short period in which such a page may be deleted. Several days lag time means there is a serious bias towards wikiholics. I dare suggest that this biases against older, mature, professional, expert, patient editors. I don’t think it is a good thing to ignore editors for whom wikipedia is not central to their lives, and who may very well go several weeks without checking their watchlists.

I suggest a lag time of 6 months. This will apply to articles that are at least two years old AND have at least ten authors AND the content is substantially in good faith to wikipedia’s principles.

I feel that for such a page, any request for deletion should clearly specify good reasons for deletion, that that there should be a presumption that the page will be improved to fix the specified problems. --SmokeyJoe 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts, anyone? SmokeyJoe 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary instruction creep.

The work of "older, mature, professional, expert, patient editors" is almost certainly good enough to survive on its own merits. Articles of the type you mention, if as you describe them, are unlikely to be nominated for deletion in the first place. If they are, many of the "wikiholics" who frequent AfD can be trusted to point out convincing reasons why they should be kept.

An article (or edit) that will not "stick" unless one particular person makes a habit of defending it is not a very sound article or edit. Good work will find vigorous support from people who had no hand in shaping the article.

It is courteous to attempt to let major editors of an article know if it is being nominated for deletion, but they do not own the article, have no special rights, and there is no compelling need for them to participate in the AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

December 2006 Deletion Statistics

I just did some quick analysis of December deletion statistics. I focused on deletion review, because that was what I was most interested in. Counting AFDs could be interesting also, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Deletion log entries are for all spaces (article, talk, User, Image, etc...)

Deletion Activity

• Rough deletion log entries (by approximate offsets, should be within 1K): 114,000 entries
• % of entries restorations: 2.02% (111 of sampled 5,500).
• Deletions: ~111,700
• Restores: ~2,300
• Net Deletions: ~109,400
• Net Deletions/Day: ~3,529

Deletion Review

• Deletion Reviews Opened: 210 (6.77 per day average, high of 15)
• Deletions Reviewed: 0.188% (ignoring the fact that some reviews are of keep decisions at AFD)
• Deletions overturned: 53 (excludes PRODs and overturns by deleting admin while DRV underway)
• Keeps overturned: 7
• Overturn rate: About 30%-33% for controversial items
• Deletions reviewed and overturned by DRV: ~0.05% (one-twentieth of one percent)

GRBerry 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)