Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Growing amount of failed nominations on current and future events[edit]

The amount of failed nominations on articles about recent and current events has risen to plentiful. WP:NOT#NEWS has been cited for deletion, yet multiple "keep" votes keep going and going. How do we limit the amount of failing nominations on such articles? --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know whether future events also apply, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian general election, 2018 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S8 were closed as "kept". Cited rationale for deletion was WP:CRYSTAL. I'm still trying to find failed noms on current events. --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack (closed as "kept") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jiansheng Chen (closed as "no consensus" ;came after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiansheng Chen, which resulted as "delete"). Contrast those with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not My Presidents Day (closed as "merge") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 DCC market fire (closed as "redirect").

I don't believe that 2017 is too soon to discuss a 2018 presidential election. The article on U.S. 2016 election was being actively edited in 2012 (!): link.
That aside, some other articles, such as 2017 Rinkeby riots, seem to be in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Now this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 3411? When will this end? George Ho (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Have a similar experience with clearly not notable aviation accidents that would reasonable fail NOTNEWS and GNG but as it is in the news and millions of people have looked at it on (add favourite social media platform) we get a lot of attention from users that believe it must be notable despite any guidelines we have and are not likely to have ever visited AfD or the related policies before or after. Perhaps we need to have a think about how an online encyclopedia reacts to events where the users think it is just another social media site so everything is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm basically of the opinion that the main issue is people misinterpreting WP:NOTNEWS and frequently nominating notable events for deletion. NOTNEWS is regularly claimed as a deletion rationale for things that I think it doesn't cover. For example, United Airlines Flight 3411 is something that I would say clearly doesn't fit under NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS gives as an example that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" should not be covered. For example, it means that we shouldn't have an article on every Major League Baseball game (of which a couple thousand are played each season) or about every revamp McDonald's make to their menu, even though those are things that numerous newspapers would cover. While a man being dragged off a plane might not sound important, it clearly isn't routine, and thus isn't the sort of thing NOTNEWS is about. Also, while lasting impact can be hard to judge when an event has just occurred, if an event is getting a lot more press coverage than similar events of that sort, that is a good indication it is notable. Something like a plane sliding off a runway with no one injured, where it is generally reported once without being followed up on, is likely to be non-notable, but something like United Airlines Flight 3411 that became a top news story with lots of continuing coverage is much more likely to be notable. The fundamental meaning of something being notable is that it garnered a lot of attention from the world at large, so the fact that a story has gone viral and is garnering a lot of attention is a good reason not to nominate it for deletion. In some cases after the fact we may realize that stories that seemed notable at the time really had no lasting impact, but nominating major news stories for deletion as they are happening just makes no sense to me, as they seem more likely than not to be notable. Calathan (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
"Routine" coverage is only one facet of NOT#NEWS. A burst of news that lasts for a day or two then disappears for all purposes is also what NOT#NEWS cautions against. It's also what RECENTISM and NEVENT also cautions against. One has to ask in 5-10 years will this be a significant event, and right now for UAF 3411, the answer is likely "no", though there is a slim chance that an interesting lawsuit or massive changes in US airline policy for overbooking to prevent the situation. There are things like disasters, attacks, shootings, etc. that will generally merit an article but editors should still be cautioned about jumping too fast in case the situation never developers beyond that burst of news. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, things that turn out not to be notable in retrospect can be deleted later. However, an event doesn't need to have lasting significance to be notable. WP:LASTING says that events that do have lasting significance are likely notable, but also says that events without a proven lasting effect are not necessarily non-notable. The main judge of notability is whether an event has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and an event that generates a flurry of news stories over several days seems to be well on its way to that. It's possible that coverage will quickly die down and an event will turn out to be non-notable, but that doesn't mean we should delete articles on recent events just because its notability won't be fully clear for some time. More importantly, news stories that receive a big spike in coverage (as opposed to just one or two initial stories) seem to generally be kept at AFD. If the majority of users believe these events are appropriate to include, then they are appropriate to include. Wikipedia's main guiding principle is consensus, and when the majority of users think we should cover something that means we should cover that thing. I basically see this thread as saying "things most people want to keep are being kept at AFD, what do we do", and my answer to that is to stop nominating for deletion things that most people want to keep. Calathan (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... Brings me back memories of my first block... a painful block due to my (formerly) deletionist behavior. That aside, I don't think a simple advice will prevent more AfD nominations on current events. How do you know this advice works often? George Ho (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I personally think these types of articles a worst then those done by paid editors. All these article do is link news outlets topic of the day. Been here a long time and can tell you 10 years ago we had many of these types of there just filled with dead links to outdates news stories. Just horrible to see articles made of headline stories. Its embarrassing and puts a dent in Wikipedia's credibility.-- Moxy (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but this kind of articles may prove invaluable when 15 years from now, a particular incident is used as a passing remark for adding cultural flavor in the next Stephen King's novel, a popular song or a political speech. Hemerotecas are a valuable historic resource for research after all, even though they are composed of nothing else than old newspapers. Diego (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of articles on "spur-of-the-moment" events is very difficult to convince to editors that create them. It is also part of the larger epidemic that people do not take WP:RECENTISM in mind not only in creation of articles but in article content (WP:PROSELINE is becoming a worsen problem). We need editors to not pull the trigger so fast on events like this, rather than consider "Well, it's easy to delete afterwards." Or better, get more editors to use Wikinews which was created for exactly this type of situation; if the event proves notable, then we can transwiki back into --MASEM (t) 05:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought WikiNews was an abandoned failure? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The same question came up at WT:NOT in February (see [1]) and it's generally agreed that it may be low-volume relative to WP, but it isn't dead, and we should not act like it is dead, until the Foundation actually pulls the plug. Our goal should be to try to encourage editors to use that more if they have a strong interest in writing about current events (whereas is better suited to established events that we can judge notability on). --MASEM (t) 13:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper; there is enough room to document incidents well-covered on multiple reliable media sources. Merely because an event is covered in Wikinews, it doesn't imply that it shouldn't also have an encyclopedic article on it. Wikinews articles should concentrate on updating readers on recent developments of ongoing events, while a Wikipedia article should provide an overview of the whole thing in a well-structured and pedagogic style, regardless of the recency of each newcoming information. As such, they are complementary, and don't replace the need to have each other. Diego (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And the deletion talk doesn't die down yet: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 12. George Ho (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
To a lot of people GNG and the like is the gold standard, as it is a relatively easy call to make. NOTNEWS is not and relies entirely on a judgment call for the most part. That's my impression at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: WP:NOTNEWS is always misinterpreted when people use it to push for deletion. Not 99%, not 99.99%, I mean 100.00000% of the time. The policy actually says to treat breaking news the same as other events. That means that if you find a few good newspaper articles about a shipwreck in 1800 or a few good news articles about a shipwreck five minutes ago, it's the same standard. I understand, of course, that modern online references are low-hanging fruit and that we overrepresent them -- that's fine! If you have a group of volunteers and you want to document the world, you start with the easy stuff - that's the sensible way to do it.
The good news is that over the years a few AFD voters have apparently actually read the policy. And if more discussions actually go the right way than there used to... you should have no more recourse for that as we did for all the good interesting articles that were lost. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My experience matches WNT here. People cite WP:NOTNEWS as though it somehow invalidates an article subject merely because it has appeared in news sources; as though we should actively seek to remove any article merely because news sources happen to be covering it. It's perplexing. Its gotten to the point that I know an article is absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia as soon as someone cites NOTNEWS as a reason to delete. It's misused that much that it's usually a reliable indicator that the article is quite good. --Jayron32 02:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just in case, here are AfD nominations on events, including West Oaks Mall riot, Swan Aviation Sikorsky S-76 Crash, 2016 Quiapo road rage incident, and 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. The riot article will be deleted via AfD, but the consensus is split toward each of the rest. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
And I re-read WP:NEVENTS, which is sometimes cited for deletion but also subjective. Edit: However, I didn't realize WP:RAPID until now. George Ho (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC); edited, 03:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On Renominations[edit]

I'm wondering about the nature of article renomination. The relevant policy text is

  • "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome."

But the way this reads is that it presupposes that the article has a problem or a shortcoming, that is "time to improve the page". What if there is no improvement needed or problem to address, if the deletion discussion results in a unanimous keep? If such a page is renominated, I would hope to see a part of the nomination devoted to what the nominator feels has changed since the last discussion. Perhaps this should be mandated. Disclosure; this came about after observances at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (3rd nomination) (05-2017) vs. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (10-2015) (but note that afd 2 was an error withdrawn) so there's really only been 1 renomination despite the numbering). ValarianB (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Imho it should be clear but I don't think it would hurt to clarify this by adding a sentence like you propose (something like "When renominating a page that was previously kept, the nominator should explain why the previous reasons to keep the page no longer apply"). Regards SoWhy 12:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This would rather contradict WP:CCC - we're perfectly entitled to come to the opposite conclusion even if nothing has changed. ValarianB does have a point about the wording though, I suggest we get rid of "to give editors the time to improve the page". Hut 8.5 21:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course consensus can change but if you initiate a discussion to change it, you usually explain why you think it should. To quote WP:CCC: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." (emphasis added) So why not apply the same standards to XFD? Regards SoWhy 06:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a little bit covered in the essay Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion#Advice_on_renominating, which reads:

When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.
Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the proposal goes rather further than WP:CCC. That page says that new arguments or circumstances are a good example of when consensus can change, but this doesn't mean that situations where consensus changes are all (or even mostly) due to changes in circumstances or arguments. I can think of several pages I've seen where multiple deletion discussions came to very different outcomes with no change in either. I think the second part SoWhy has quoted is already covered: users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. Hut 8.5 20:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

unused file[edit]

Why unused or obsolete file should deleted? Why not keep it for historical record, or for tracking what happen in the past? What is the disadvantage of keeping it? --Ans (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:FAIRUSE. unused freely licensed files can and are kept and are usually transferred to Commons, but non-free files lose their claim of fair use if they aren't actually being used. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)