User talk:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion is not a substitute for tagging

In order to assert that an article be deleted[edit]

May I suggest that each tag section should have an 'In order to assert that an article should be deleted' section? Here is my initial suggestion for {source}

To assert that an article should be deleted on the basis that no secondary sources are available requires you to make the argument that no appropriate sources can be located and that there is no reasonable prospect of locating them. You should have yourself conducted a basic search for such sources and ideally consulted at least one editor who has successfully located sources for articles in a similar subject domain with a view to establishing that not only can you not personally locate relevant sources but that there is no reasonable prospect of someone expert in the area doing so.

I accept the wording will probably need reworking a bit.--BoatThing 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Balancer 11:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now included in main document. --BoatThing 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts[edit]

You'll probably want to highlight these points in your essay:

Wikipedia:Deletion policy] states "Subject of article cannot meet one of the following consensually accepted guidelines." My emphasis. This passage should not be read to mean that an article currently does not, but that the article cannot. A nominator should therefore balance the probabilities that the article can meet the guidance offered, leaning on our WP:AGF guidance, and if they are not 100% certain that the article cannot meet the criteria outlined in guidance, they should consider appropriate clean up tags instead. They should then allow a reasonable time for interested editors to fix any problems; if after a reasonable time the article is no better, then it would be better demonstrated that the article cannot meet the criteria.

Wikipedia:Deletion policy] also states that if you can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations), then you should first "Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted."

Our Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states: "Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AFD."

Consider the arguments made at Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article, an essay which this will be counter pointing. Add that essay in a see also section once you are ready to go live, and do the same to that essay, noting they counter-point.

Read Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process.

Hope those points help. Hiding Talk 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed. Balancer 11:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are some extremely good suggestions. - Zaron 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of wrong AfD's[edit]

I think it might be a good idea to add some examples of AfD's that were put up as a substitute for a tag. It makes things a little clearer for people, and they can see the AfD process of such a 'wrong' AfD, seeing how it really is wrong, so to say. JackSparrow Ninja 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True - although the number should be limited, and it shouldn't only be webcomics-related examples. While there have been a spate of recent webcomic AFDs that this essay definitely applies to, I don't think this problem is limited to webcomics. Balancer 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and agree. I just added the examples I know. JackSparrow Ninja 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to get involved[edit]

I would like to contribute to this, and will when I have the time. In the meantime here is a rather long post I wrote to everyone's favourite AfD debater, which is very relevant to this argument and which I will try to extract some less-topical information from. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]