Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DEL)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
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.
Archive
Archives

2008
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
2009
34, 35, 36 37 38
2010
39 40
2011
41

Why did you speedy delete instead of edit my page!![edit]

Why did you speedy delete instead of edit my page!! How can I get it back so I can begin editing???

HMGMR (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • If you are referring to Robert C. Hilliard (lawyer), it looks like that was deleted under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I didn't do it, it was performed by User:Deb. I'm confident you can visit with Deb on that user's talk page for more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I nominated it for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. I also deduced form the alleged references in the article that you have a WP:COI. Had you kept this as a draft and submitted it for review you might have stood a chance of getting it published. The WP:AFC route is not closed to you on this.
Our deletion process is designed so that an admin verifies requests for speedy deletion. It seems that they agreed with me. You should now relocate this discussion to that admin's talk page, please. Fiddle Faddle 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify/change speedy deletion contesting policy[edit]

I propose that we either change the policy or clarify the wording regarding how users contest a speedy deletion. The current policy as it is worded only forbids the article creator from removing a speedy deletion tag, any other user can remove the speedy deletion tag in order to contest the speedy deletion. However, many times the article creator will simply log out and remove the tag or create a new account to remove the tag in an attempt to bypass this guideline. Many new page/recent changes patrollers already revert these "unexplained" removals of speedy deletion tags as disruptive. I would like to see the policy changed to state that any editor removing a speedy deletion tag, must also provide a reasoning for the removal in the edit summary (or talk page), otherwise it is considered disruptive and may be reverted. As I stated, many editors already practice this anyways as a matter of common sense. It's silly to allow article creators to simply contest a speedy deletion by logging out, and they clearly are not acting in good faith. It would waste time to have to take many of these articles to AfD. Experienced editors who contest speedy deletions normally leave an explanatory edit summary anyhow, so I don't see this change as being controversial, or that it adds undue weight to the deletion process. Thanks. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It is certianly best practice to leve an edit summary, or a note on the talk page, or both. I myself often use {{oldcsd}} on the talk page, plus a note to the tagger. Note that unlike prod, there is no rule forbidding any good faith editor from restoring the tag now, so I'm not sure that we need a policy or guideline about this, perhaps an esay would do. Avoid WP:CREEP. But if we do make this change, we should also say that when restoring a tag an editor is responsible for checking that it is a valid tag. When/if an invalid or improper speedy deletion tag is removed by an IP or other editor without a summary, it should not by restored in a knee-jerk edit. By restoring the tag, an editor should be stating a good-faith belief that the listed criterion does in fact apply to the page. I see many dubious tags when i patrol Category:CSD. DES (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, generally speaking, once a CSD tag has been properly removed, the article should not be renominated for speedy deletion, and definitely not under the same CSD Criteria (Except newly discovered G12s). Its really an exception to that general rule when we have a clear WP:DUCK of the page creator remove the tag, and then someone else restores it for that reason. In the absence of a reasonable belief the remover was a sock, it shouldn't be re-added even if you think its correct, instead bring it to AfD for discussion. Monty845 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we throw common sense out the window, if a tag is removed without an explanation, but the tag was clearly erroneous then it shouldn't be re-added just for the sake of re-adding it. However, I don't see it as problematic to make it standard practice that someone contesting a speedy deletion leave an edit summary explaining the reason why they are contesting it. Like I said, non-sock editors almost always do this anyhow, we should be able to warn editors who are "disruptively" removing CSD tags, even if they are not the author, and having a policy to point to that supports this would be helpful. Currently, all we do is point them to a policy that says, "log out and try removing it again." I don't think a change to the wording of this policy would somehow mean the amount of superfluous CSD tags would suddenly spike. It just means editors will be less likely to try and bypass the spirit of the policy. I want to avoid, unnecessary AfD discussion that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, I have no issue with "properly contested" CSD's being taken to AfD. Hope that makes sense. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

#14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia[edit]

This is so open ended to be meaningless and is a deletionist gift from heaven. For example one editor claims that because an article contained some promotional content, the entire article should be deleted since it is "not suitable for an encyclopedia". This is not an isolated incident, this editor claims this rational has been used "thousands" of times at AfD. -- GreenC 22:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe and Green Cardamom: WP:NOT includes an extensive list of things that should not be included in Wikipedia. This is the policy that #14 refers to. Jarble (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No. WP:NOT may be long, but it is defined. If you cannot keep clear of anything at WP:NOT, then you are on dangerous ground. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It is only a gift from heaven to a "deletionist" if said deletionist's idea of heaven an encyclopedia without non-encyclopedic content. These are not speedy deletion criteria and criteria under WP:NOT specifically do not fall under speedy deletion. Anything deleted under this clause goes through community review. This is working just fine, no need to fix it.
I am afraid the examples given are pretty meaningless without links. When only a second hand description of things is provided it often tends to favour a point of view. For example, how successful was this person at getting a whole article deleted because they thought it is "not suitable for an encyclopedia"? Where are these thousands of arguments using this part of policy? Chillum 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How long is the result of a discussion valid?[edit]

Should an old deletion discussion be valid for all future, or is it possible to start to redevelop an article later on? Sure, in the case of Minneapolis Bandolier it has been only a little over a year since the discussion, but still, can't a discussion ever be considered to be outdated? Should it always lay a dead hand over the development of articles? Dammråtta (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Dammråtta, It is valid until consensus changes and no longer. It is pretty much always acceptable to start a new discussion if an editor feels that circumstances have changed, new facts have come to light, or new arguments might persuade the community to change its view. Although doing so too soon without clearly new evidence is often considered a bad idea -- in the past editors have often frowned on re-nominating an article kept at a previous AfD in less than 4-6 months, unless a good new reason is provided. In the case of an AfD closed as merge, when enough new info has been added to the merged article to justify a split, that can be a good reason to change the previous outcome. So can creating a new draft that is clearly notable on its own. Such a case came up at WP:DRV recently, and the old AFD result of Merge was overturned, largely because there was significant additional sourced content than there had been when the merge occurred. DES (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It depends on why it was deleted/merged/kept. As long as that issue is still there, there is no need to resurrect the discussion. But if there is a reason to challenge the previous consensus, there is no time period needed. A lot of good articles now were once deleted. For example, let's say there's an article about an up-and-coming sprinter that is deleted because the athlete didn't have notable results and enough articles. A week after the article is deleted, the athlete wins the world championship and sets a world record. The article would immediately be available for recreation because there would be no doubt about notability. But if nothing has changed and there are no new sources or anything that would change the consensus, it should not be recreated. МандичкаYO 😜 01:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Page is kept"[edit]

Sandstein undid my clarification about renomination: [1]. I don't particularly care about article vs page (I thought article was preferred) but the point is, this wording confuses some people. They see "page is kept" and think that refers to any page that is not deleted. I have twice been accused of being disruptive because I renominated for deletion an article that had previously been AfD and was closed as no consensus. Their argument was that the page was kept because it was not deleted, therefore, I should have waited before renominating it. One person accused me of being disruptive, demanded I withdraw the AfD and then reported me at ANI - multiple admins replied and explained why this was not disruptive, as did the closing admin on the AfD. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Disruptive renomination at AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver) (2nd nomination). This happened again recently - obviously this needs to be clarified. In this part about renomination, it should clearly say, "Page closed as keep" instead of "page is kept" as apparently people think "kept" is not the AfD keep but any circumstance where it is not deleted. МандичкаYO 😜 12:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTFAQ and NOTHOWTO[edit]

An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)