Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DEL)
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, and don't panic.

Orphaned Talk Page[edit]

Abondon since 2013 how to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22sep (talkcontribs) 07:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: new "Merging to a list" section[edit]

I suggest renaming the current Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging section to "Merging to another article" and adding a new section "Merging to a list", with shortcut WP:ATD-L. Proposed wording:

An AFD may create unnecessary conflict between supporters of two extremes: eradicating everything on a topic vs. keeping a separate article on the topic, when merging the material to a list-article item might be a good compromise. This seems to have happened for articles on buildings or businesses where separate articles tend to attract overly long, promotional coverage, while list-articles on the type of topic seem reasonable. Deletion is an extreme that eliminates edit history (sometimes all of a new editor's contributions), discussions about sources, and even links to past AFDs. A compromise is to cover the topic in a list-article item, expanding or creating a section or table row as necessary. The redirect and its Talk page left behind preserve edit history and past debate. If no suitable target list-article exists, consider creating one with the topic as its first list-item. If the new list-item would be longer than others merely enumerated, consider creating a table in the target list-article with the topic as the first expanded table row. When a topic is naturally covered in more than one list-article, however, keeping a separate article to hold expanded content (avoiding duplication) becomes more reasonable.

Would something like this, perhaps dropping the first two sentences for brevity, be acceptable? --doncram 18:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I like it a lot. I think what I'd prefer to term "curationist" is the appropriate middle ground between inclusionism and deletionism: Lots of stuff may have a valid home in Wikipedia without meriting its own article. Some stuff should just be nuked from orbit, to be sure, but that's not what this is talking about. I find that for overly-detailed fictional elements, this has become the most positive and effective approach. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think this works with many problem areas: TV-anchors and on-air reporters, inactive baseball players, Miss USA state pageant winners (although it is not clear that all states should have such), high schools in Rupandehi district Nepal, General Authorities of the Mormon church, and publishers in Italy.  The basic problem is that the list can be challenged as not notable.  The other is that without the centralized discussion forum for content/redirect/merge, AfD will be misused to argue to merge articles to the list pages.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The corollary to that, then, is that we should make it more difficult to delete lists of not individually notable items. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks User:Jclemens and User:Unscintillating! I like the curationist term. Offhand I don't think AFDs about the lists themselves will be too much of a problem. I happen to think that a list of the very most notable X's in the world is almost always valid, whatever X is (or at least where X = any of the areas mentioned above), either as a standalone list or as a section in an article about X. Note if some X's have separate articles, then there will naturally be a category of X's, and then almost always wp:CLT justifies there being a list-article (which can include redlinks, sources, illustrations, text). Unscintillating, can you expand on what kind of misuse you envision? Is it about a topic not meriting a separate article that also doesn't meet a reasonable inclusion standard for the list-article? --doncram 19:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Eh, there have been a few character lists deleted from the videogames Wikiproject that you should look at. I engaged in discussion on the project talk page with a few who simply didn't see a problem with deleting lists of otherwise NN characters from a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Hmm. A list of X's can be valid even when every X on its own is non-notable. It's an editing decision, about when it is useful to split out a list of X's from the page on X. But nor is every list of non-notable X's automatically valid. The fictional franchise character lists should go through AFD like all other articles. There's no problem with the proposal from this, right? --doncram 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I'm thinking about all the cases of significant topics where deletion is not a consideration under our WP:Deletion policy.  Such topics can't accidentally be deleted at a central discussion forum for merge/redirect.  For example, all candidates for Miss World are included/significant in the encyclopedia and all of these candidates as topics have at least some reliable sourcing, but at least one AfD exists where such a topic was deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
          • The essay wp:INSIGNIFICANCE can be updated with this ATD-L reasoning. If I understand correctly, the issue suggested here is that an AFD about a topic (an individual Miss World winner) that is also a list item (in a list of Miss World winners) might sometimes be closed "Delete" or "Redirect to the list" in the central AFD forum. When the topic is nonetheless valid as a separate article. The proposal won't change anything here. Invalid closures to "Redirect to list" will happen from time to time, as do invalid closures to "Delete". Normal processes are to be followed, which I think are: 1. respect the consensus decision, or 2. if you find significant additional content/sources, the article can be recreated (and it is easier to do this if it has merely be redirected), or 3. appeal the deletion decision. --doncram 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Significant topics are not necessarily notable topics, and for the purposes of this discussion, we are interested in non-notable but significant topics.  There is no theoretical case to delete a significant topic, because the topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and deletion is guaranteed to do damage to the encyclopedia and violate the policy WP:ATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
              • So what I think you're saying is that sometimes a topic is "significant", i.e. should have an article because it will grow or otherwise, and then the article should not be deleted (even though we may create a list and include it as a list-item). If so, I agree 100%. What I hope is this proposal should address cases where the decision would be to delete an article (i.e. this would encourage "merge and redirect to a list-item", saving an article's edit history at the redirect). It is somewhat possible, I guess, that some marginal cases will end up with that outcome when they would previously have been "Kept" instead, if this this proposal brings more focus to the task of building lists (with or without deletions). But I am not sure that should be a big concern. Is that concern what you are getting at? --doncram 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
                • I'm using the phrase "significant topic" because I think we lack sufficient common technical terms that apply to the WP:ATD.  A redirect is a part of WP:Editing policy, whereas delete and redirect is a part of WP:Deletion policy.

                  In the general theory, non-notable and insignificant topics get deleted.  A non-notable but significant topic with an article should in the general theory be converted to a redirect to a parent topic, with reliable material merged to the parent article.  So a non-notable but significant topic is also suitable for a redirect and merge to a list, as I understand the concept.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. This use of "template:afd-merge to" by AFD closer User:SSTflyer is a good example of what should be done, when implementing a "merge to a list-item" is not easily done. I just chose to implement that merge&redirect to List of hotels in Spain (plus implement 2 more merge&redirects for 2 other hotels); this involved creating tables within the target list-article and setting up anchors for the redirects by use of "id=" to name specific table rows. --doncram 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

--doncram 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to keep dabs with two entries[edit]

Please consider participating in proposal to eliminate one kind of AFDs, at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#‎Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. The proposal is to always keep two-item disambiguation pages, like keeping redirects, rather than allowing deletion under current wp:TWODABS policy/guideline. --doncram 17:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What is "a reasonable amount of time" for AfD renomination?[edit]

Can we clarify this a bit? Two weeks? Two months? Half a year? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The real question is "what changed?" If nothing, then probably a year; anything less arguing that an AfD outcome was wrong (based on the evidence at the time of AfD) should probably go to DRV. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It always depends on context. If something is a clear keep it probably shouldn't be renominated for a few months at least. A poorly-attended non consensus could probably be discussed again within a couple of weeks. And if a keep outcome seems contingent on the article eventually becoming properly sourced, and nothing of the sort happens, it should be re-nominated sooner rather than later. Obviously procedural closes that don't go into the article contents could be re-opened right away. I wouldn't want to put exact numbers on it, but time scales of weeks to months are generally appropriate. Really all we're trying to do is avoid the extremes; I recently saw someone peevishly renominate a clear keep minutes after it closed, and also saw someone rolling his eyes and yawning "speedy keep- NOTAGAIN" on a non-consensus from 2008. As long as we avoid similar absurdities, we're all good. Reyk YO! 12:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • As this is an old, recurring, question, I wrote an essay: Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Originally, it suggested two months for "no consensus" and six months of a concensus to keep close. User:DGG changed "no consensus" renomination default wait period to one month. These suggested defaults are not intended to conflict with Jclemens and Reyk's valid points above, but there are many non-experienced editors who want rules, and they seem to coincide with people who cannot asses the question "what changed". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
My specification of time was meant as a suggestion, not a rule. WP needs fewer absolute rules, and more use of good judgment. What is wrong is repeated renomination to force something which does not really have consensus. What is right is trying to achieve consensus. DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree in general, but some people benefit from rules of thumb to work with. Some even need some rules. People such as people who don't seem to have good personal judgement. Think Lie-to-children if you like. In other cases, autistic-tending editors, a group that includes some of the most valuable and productive, tend to benefit from explicitly stated norms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that essay words it quite well enough "as a suggestion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Rfc on upgrading the NAC essay to a guideline[edit]

Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Afd process proposal submitted to Village pump[edit]

I submitted a proposal for use of a checklist, like the {{DYK checklist}} for the Afd process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd process. I wasn't sure where to post it - here, Articles for deletion talk page, other, so I took it to village pump.

It would be great to get your input on this idea!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)