Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Removed "Non-administrators closing CfD discussions" due to outdated information

This was created when the page was full protected. It is now semi protected so the statement no longer applies.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisting after more than "one or two commenting editors"

I want to register that I completely disagree with the change made here and discussed here, which seems to preclude relisting unless the debate was short. But the purpose of AFD is to determine whether there is consensus to delete a page, not to force a decision in 5 days in all but the most exceptional circumstances. If an administrator feels that more discussion might lead to a clearer consensus, that should be allowed no matter how many editors have commented so far. Consensus can change, and this is especially true if an editor makes a comment late in the discussion which introduces a novel policy-based argument or new reliable sources that hadn't yet been considered. Forcing a close when there are unaddressed policy-based arguments or reliable sources just would push the debate from AfD to DRV, except that in DRV arguments to endorse will often and typically be made because "process was followed" and "DRV is not AFD round 2", which results in a foreclosure of the unresolved discussion at AFD. This is contrary to both the letter and spirit of consensus policy, which says that "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable." DHowell (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Relisting is just realistically facing the fact that some discussions need more time, even to conclude "no consensus." This can become clear at any time in the discussion. This was instruction creep, supported by the fact (in my estimation) that it has not had a major effect in practice, and I support reverting.John Z (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removing that, and eliminating the internal reference to it that is now in Wikipedia:Deletion process#Process, point #8. The instruction creep was not useful, in my opinion. GRBerry 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing that, since I was part of that discussion. I don't how the change prevents a relisting in the examples cited above in this section. The goal of the section is to discourage multiple relists of an debate which is not going to reach consensus anyway. Some editors/admins shy away from closing a discussion as no consensus, since those are generally the ones that generate the most flack for the closer, especially with non-admin closures. If you would like to alter the text to make it clearer that "If an administrator feels that more discussion might lead to a clearer consensus, that [relisting] should be allowed no matter how many editors have commented so far", (quoting DHowell above), then I have no objection to that. However, if the article's already been relisted once, relisting a second time is discouraged. The current language doesn't forbid it, however, so I'm still not sure I see a problem.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 18:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. For one thing, the version linked to above is not the version we currently have. (Indeed it was changed by several, including me, during the discussion.) And some of the points above seem to rely on that old version.

So what's the objection to the current text? Would someone clarify please? - jc37 05:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a current example of problem relisting. See WP:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney. IP had vandalized article. When warned, IP asked for assistance deleting the article. (See the AfD and the beginning of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Relistings_of_AfDs_by_non-administrators for diffs). The vandalism patroller declined. Immediately, same minute, an account was registered and later that day filed an MfD. Another editor helpfully moved the nomination to AfD, and some discussion appeared. One editor voted Keep and then the original vandal IP !voted Delete. There was one other Keep and one other Delete. Disregarding the sock vote, that's four editors (including the vandal) and two to one non-vandal, established accounts !voting for Keep. It could be argued that policy would indicate this or that, but normal closers handle these things. However, a non-admin relisted, and seems to be doing this routinely, standards unknown. See Special:Contributions/Ron Ritzman; today Ron relisted 10 AfDs in 5 minutes. Relisting is a form of close, and should require the same care as any other close. That care is impossible in thirty seconds per AfD. In the example I refer to, relisting was unlikely to reverse the apparent rough consensus, and when the nature of the original nomination as an extension of vandalism is seen, I conclude, it was doubly a problem. Current !vote is running 10 keep to 8 Delete, i.e., consensus is unlikely (though possible, I suppose; but is a Consensus Keep with lots of !votes better than one with few, or than a No Consensus result?). Consensus is not a magic, holy grail, and we rarely find it in marginal cases in any case, we only find "rough consensus," because of deep divisions in the community on deletionism/inclusionism, so we should aim for efficiency and minimal disruption, not exhaustive debate unless the issue is truly important. How important is a marginal article, which is what it is if the !vote is split like this? As long as the article meets WP:V, reasonably, there is no emergency. --Abd (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The main reason behind the change was that 20 or 30 AFDs per day were being relisted, often for a second time, when there were 10 or so arguments with an even amount on both sides. The correct result for these is a no-consensus closure, not a relist in the hope that the balance will be tipped one way or the other. If there's no consensus and enough users have contributed to the debate that the formation of one isn't very likely, relisting is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  And mistakes will always happen, no matter how many layers of policy you have. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD header

Currently we use the {{At}} template to close AFDs. It uses a style similar to {{discussion top}} that leaves all the content visible. I propose we change the style to be more like {{collapse top}} to save space on the AFD log pages. It will let the pages close faster and let editors be able to identify open AFDs easier to comment on them. Opinions? MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be quite annoying to open an old debate and have to click "show" to see it. Can you make it so that the discussions only collapse when the AfD is transcluded? Skomorokh 04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will change the speed of page loading/closing. All the data needed to display the expanded version of a collapsed box needs to be loaded in order to load the page. It will speed up the time humans take scanning for the next open discussion. This is valuable in and of itself; see WP:DRV. GRBerry 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DRV was my inspiration. No, there is no way I know of to differentiate collapsing based on transclusion. I have seen once of twice where ANI loaded much faster when a long thread was collapsed, but I might be having a weird memory. MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it not be formatted similar to {{navbox}}, which has state = autocollapse, uncollapsed, collapsed options so that when one navbox is on a page, it is uncollapsed but when two are on the page, they are both collapsed by default. On the speed issue; since all the same information is being loaded I can't imagine the proposed change would speed things up unless it makes better use of caching. Skomorokh 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems like it would work. How long should I wait before making a change to a system that collapses if transcluded, but otherwise does not collapse? MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way of going forward would be to set up a sandbox version to test the proposed system it, then reporting the results here and advertising the change at the appropriate pages (WP:CENT might be a bit much) to see if there's consensus. Let me know if you could use a hand. Regards, Skomorokh 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could use a hand here, I am not used to working with complex/widely used templates like this (I usually do WP:UTM stuff). MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to say...maybe not...to changing this. I make a lot of housekeeping corrections to the AfD pages, and most common are improperly closed AfD tags or templates. That is easy to find and fix when it just gives a blue tint to the rest of the page (and not too intrusive to others). It becomes harder to do so when a mistake in the close causes odd nested collapses in other AfDs. Would this do that? Protonk (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Based on what I have seen at DRV - yes it will. GRBerry 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Shouldn't be to hard to rig up an uncollapsed mirror of the page, or have a bot detect improperly closed discussions (like the one that corrects incomplete nominations). Skomorokh 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've hacked together a few sandboxes at Template:At/Sandbox, Template:Afd top/Sandbox and Template:Afd bottom/Sandbox, based on Template:drv top and Template:Drv bottom ({{collapse top}} looked a bit daunting). I haven't closed a DRV before, and don't understand the reason for substituting {{afd top}} within {{at}}, so I haven't been able to get the parameters working, but an example is available at Template:Afd top/Sandbox2. The current output should be of the format

Please feel free to dive in and tinker with the sandboxes, proposed alternate styles and so on. Skomorokh 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is a way to differentiate collapsing based on transclusion. You could use the <noinclude> and <includeonly> tags. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Just coming back to this now; Skomorokh, your idea is good, but it doesn't allow for narrative closures (and will break the closure scripts). I'll have a look when I get a chance. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How to exclude deleted pages from Google search results?

I execute a Google search daily that includes the following:

site:en.wikipedia.org -Afd -"Note that books"

Question is: what can I use to exclude deleted articles from the Google results? The displayed text for a deleted article begins "This page has been deleted. The deletion log ..." but that text is apparently not accessed by Google search. The -"Note that books" catches some, but not all deleted pages (that text was visible on the Google search results).

This may not be the right talk page for this question, but finding the right page for deleted articles is not easy and it seemed likely that people accessing this subject might know the answer to my question. Thanks 69.106.246.15 (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't provide support for Google here; please try contacting Google if you need help with Google searches. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, yet relevant: deleted pages are sometimes still relevant; they have just been judged as not being appropriate for Wikipedia. This is why they continue to exist in the Deletionpedia and are not excluded from search engines. David spector (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Citing CSD is "strongly recommended"

This page says "Citing the specific criteria for speedy deletion in the comment is strongly recommended." I don't think this is the best practice. CSDs can come and go, but a plain English explanation of the deletion reason will make sense forever. Any thoughts? Friday (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(copied from my comment to your talk page)Hi Friday, Shaking asked me to take a look at his comments after I left him a note indicating that he mis-spoke when representing A7. I have to agree with ShakingSpirit on the use of standardized language. While it may make more sense to you, it doesn't really help---and might actually hinder. For example, suppose that Shaking nominated an article A3, but wasn't sure of his rationale. You delete it with "some cool kid," by using "plain english" Shaking can't gain insight from your deletion. Now, if you deleted it A3, he would know "Yeah, I did it right" but if you deleted it A7, it might help him rationalize why A7 was better than A3. It also teaches bad precident. If you can delete an article with "some cool kid" why can't Shaking nominate as "some cool kid?" And if he can nominate articles for deletion per "some cool kid" then why not bob? Jill? Sue? Why have guidelines at all? By explicitly stating the guideline, it also forces you (and the nominator) to identify what criteria it fits. "Does the article really fit G3?" If you do CSD's then you should feel comfortable speaking the jargon, and by speaking the jargon, you ensure that others understand what you are saying. The criteria may change, but by citing specific criteria, you are CYA'ing yourself with the specific policy as it stands. Not leaving it up to personal interpretation. "Some cool kid" doesn't tell me if you deleted it A7 or if that was the total contents of the page?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me there's no reason not to do both- the UI allows the pull-down choice and a typed-in reason. Friday (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason not to do both... but it really is helpful to have a standardized language. Also, if you (generic) don't use standardized language, we might end up having some real creative reasons for CSD that are not criteria at all... I've seen them and I'm certain you have as well.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen them, sure, and I haven't known it to cause any problems. In actual practice, the CSD are not applied very rigidly, and it still works just fine. Friday (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, there is a reason why I wrote, Why I hate speedy deleters. CSD'ers are one of the least popular (but necessary) segments of our community because people routinely go off the reservation and deem their judgment superior to consensus.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using plain english, but you should probably avoid citing reasons that are explicity not CSD, like WP:NFT. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday, on your talk page you proposed doing away with using the criteria all together and using just plain english... because people learn the limitations of the CSD criteria. I know you watch RfA... you honestly believe that most CSD'ers ever learn the policies well enough that they can depart from the established criteria? I mean, we already have enough problem getting people to follow the criteria as is, and you want to not only let people off the reservation, but you want to encourage them to leave it? Come on! This particularly surprises me based upon your views of young admins. CSD is (stereotypically) the hunting ground of teenagers. We need to reign in careless CSD'ers, not forgo our standards.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions need to be done right. But I doubt you'll convince me that "right" means "bureaucratic". I'm not talking about not having standards, I'm talking about using common sense. I just now went to delete Air widdledove, for example, but it was already gone. We could argue all day long about the best way to categorize that deletion, but does it matter? If someone can take 10-seconds, read the article, and do the right thing, it's not worth spending minutes trying to describe what got done. Trying to pretend the CSD can be applied rigidly gives people the wrong idea about all sorts of things. There's no getting around the need for good judgement, and we shouldn't try to pretend otherwise. But, maybe this is drifting into a (probably pointless) philosophical discussion about the nature of "rules" at Wikipedia- in practical terms, I can use the drop-down and the type-in, and this will work most of the time. Hopefully this satisfies everyone. Friday (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's no conflict behind Friday's and I'm Spartacus!'s positions: use the standardized language in the drop-down box to describe which speedy criteria it meets, satisfying I'm Spartacus!'s (justified) argument for consistent messages among deletions, and use the type-in box for a few words that explain WHY it falls under that criteria, giving those not versed in CSD jargon a little more explanation as to why their page got deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is an accurate CSD so important and who uses them after the deletion has occurred? Is it just so deletions can be cataloged? If so, who is actually interested in that data?

More to the point, how often do people use an inaccurate CSD when deleting? If often, then the goals of standardisation over common sense statements may be a waste of time anyway. David D. (Talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's important so that when people make good-faith efforts to post an article, and then it's deleted, they can look at the criteria stated and know that a) it was deleted according to a wikipedia policy, not some random whim of an administrator and b) how they can create an article next time to avoid the same deletion. As for how many people use inaccurate CSD criteria when deleting, I'm not sure. I know that many users don't fully understand the criteria; when I'm patrolling CSD, I frequently change the deletion reason from what the original tagger thought the reason should be. However, I have faith that most of our CSD'ing admins have a better understanding of the policy, and are using the correct criteria.--Aervanath (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't think people who start articles that are speedy delete worthy don't already have a pretty good idea why it was deleted? I do agree that for articles that go through a more formal deletion process there might be a need for better documentation. David D. (Talk) 03:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not usually, no; most non-vandal editors who have their pages speedily-deleted are newbies who probably don't understand our processes. If articles are deleted according to more formal processes, then there is already documentation in the form of the deletion discussion, which is linked to from the deletion message. However, the whole point of CSD is that there is no discussion, so the only record anybody has is the deletion message.--Aervanath (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good goal to help the newbies along. But we shouldn't leave obviously unusable content lying around, or send it through some more bureaucratic process, just to accomplish that. A quick note on their talk page will do the job. My rule of thumb is usually: if the author obviously knew they were adding nonsense, I say nothing or leave them a "don't post nonsense" message. If it seems more likely they were making a real effort, I often leave them a more gentle message telling them what the problem is, and only bring out the ruder ones if they keep re-creating it without addressing the problem. Friday (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree; I wasn't talking about talk page messages, I was only considering the entry in the deletion log itself, where I think there's agreement that a mix of standardized and "free English" is probably the best way to go.--Aervanath (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that even experienced users sometimes get articles deleted. I had two FA articles under my belt when somebody speedy deleted an article---while I was working on it! As for why it is important to note the reason, because it justifies the action. If an article is deleted per "some cool kid." That doesn't tell anybody why. You don't know what the admin was thinking. Was it A7? Was it A3? Was it the guy next to you told you to delete it on a dare? You can't tell what the thought process was, thus improvement is nigh impossible. I have no problem with adding to the rationale. "A7-Some cool kid" or "A3-Some cool kid." That ties your actions to the deletion rationale.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Very frequently. Goto my talk page and you'll see a link of "survey" questions that I did back in November. These are from REAL speedy deleted cases. There is at least one well respected admin out there who routinely abuses A7 and G1 deletions, and cites IAR "It's going to be deleted anyway" when challenged.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Given how frequently they are misapplied, why wouldn't it be better to encourage a plain english explanation? David D. (Talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So because people have shown that they are incapable of adhering to or understanding the policy, we should make it easier to bend/break the rules? If people can't follow the guidelines when they are quoting them, what makes you think they will start to adhere them if we went to plain english explanations? "plain english (only) explanations" are a nightmare waiting to happen because it would truly open the floodgates for people who think they know better and would take away all accountability. It would truly make it a free for all with some admins deleting more stuff incorrectly.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're way off base. If this were a problem, it would be a problem we'd already be having. The UI already allows people to type in a reason instead of using the pull-down. This comment and your essay come off sounding to me like "deletion is bad- whatever makes it more difficult is good" which is not a useful perspective to have. Friday (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, it is a problem, there is a reason why niche candidates have been successful at RfA, but Niche candidates who work solely in Anti-Vandalism/NPP/CSD don't stand a chance---and haven't for well over a year. People who work in CSD are important, but we need more people who do a good job at it, not people who do a piss poor job at it. A good CSD'er is just as important, if not more important than a good content contributor. Unfortunately, people who work in content have a better mentoring system. A good content contributor will work at GA/FA/Peer review, and have constant feedback from others because their work is out in the open. Thus, we garner consistency in the process. At CSD, there are no built in controls or mentoring process, thus it is nigh impossible to tell what other CSD'ers are goind unless you explicitly look at what they've done. I suspect that not many people have actually gone in to look at how other CSD'ers have worked on. I suspect that even fewer people have actually broached the subject with other CSD admins. Heck, I don't see too many admins dropping notes at non-admin pages when they decline a CSD request, explaining why the request was denied or how they could improve the process. I do, most non-admins are appreciative, but some get defensive. I actually had one tell me, that all they had to do was keep renoming it and eventually, the page would be deleted. The lesson that person expressed, it's ok to admin-shop.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason not to use both, but the plain old English should be preferred over some alphabet soup stuff. Some people seem to be coming at this from the POV that the CSDs are somehow sacrosanct.. but let's face it - people go around changing what's in the drop-downs whenever they want, and currently at least one of THOSE descriptions is fairly unhelpful. Yes, I'm looking at you, "no indication that the article meets standards for inclusion." That doesn't even match what WP:CSD says! Let's not put too much emphasis on those silly old pull-down lists. People are just being too bureaucratic here. A deletion reason of "some cool kids" does indeed tell us why the article was deleted. Friday (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say plain English "preferred", so much as I would say "used to explain why it meets the community-approved speedy-deletion criteria". The whole point of CSD is that they are "sacrosanct" (i.e. policy, which is as close as you'll get to sancrosanct on wikipedia). Admins shouldn't be deleting things willy-nilly; the CSD criteria are there because they are the community-approved criteria that allow us to delete without discussion; before CSD and PROD, everything went through Afd; the CSD are narrowly-defined for a reason. The entry in the deletion log should be tailored to explain to anyone at a glance why it meets those community-approved criteria.--Aervanath (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that it's never been actual practice to use them too rigidly - that's just some fiction we tell newbies to try to ease them into things. We expect admins to use their judgement, and we expect that there are some perfectly valid speedies that don't exactly match the rules. Just yesterday we had Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Opposite_Day_paradox. There was clear agreement that this was speediable, yet I don't see where anyone worried about fitting it exactly into an existing category. People play a bit loose with the CSDs in actual practice. It's not at all true that everyone went to AFD before there were explicitly spelled out CSDs- look at the beginnings of the deletion log. Some of them were deleted per VFD, some were not. Obvious cases can go away- no rigid application of rules is required. Friday (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem with Speedy Deleter's... they think that they don't have to adhere to the community consensus because they know better. There is a reason why CSD'ers are one of the most unpopular (yet necessary) aspects of the community. Too many people delete articles too willy nilly that should not be deleted. There are no controls over the area, so people already routinely break the rules per IAR, and it gives the CSD community a bad reputation. Those who aren't adnering to the policies, should be. They should be responsible enough not to go off the reservation, unfortuantely, too many admin aren't. I don't mind having a code plus "plain english"---in fact that would be better than just using the CSD Jargon, but if you are going to delete something, you should be able to justify said deletion per one of the criteria. Otherwise, we are going to end up with IAR becoming the principle reason for CSD. We already have enough admins who think that IAR should be routinely invoked already!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are these admins running around making bad deletions? Someone who routinely made bad deletions would be noticed, and the problem would be corrected, right? I have a hard time believing this is a significant problem, but if you can show me one, I'm willing to be proved wrong. I don't know how you can say there are "no controls"- there's a log, and deletions are very easy to undo, and there is even deletion review. Friday (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are admins who apparently don't know or don't adhere to the CSD criteria. I could name a few right off the top of my head, but the only way that I would do so is if I were going to immediately start and RfC against them. I think it is bad form to call out people without being willing/ready to make a stink. But yes, there are admins who when I see them delete articles, my first question is, "How did they mess up." I know this because I was doing my CSD'er of the week award for about 6 weeks or so... there were some admins who I simply started to avoid because I knew their work was shoddy at best. As for controls... DRV isn't really a control nor is the log. I suspect that upwards of 95% of the bad calls at CSD never get noticed. Most people who have articles deleted are unfamiliar with DrV and don't know enough about Wikipedia to do anything. They just leave in frustration. People who work at Drv may not realize that the 1 case brought to them by USERX isn't one isolated case, but rather an indicator of a chronic problem. So how would a poor deleter be noticed? Who has oversight? Who monitors the deletions to ensure they are correct? Who knows what to do if something is deleted wrong? A bad CSD admin can do more damage to Wikipedia than the worst vandal---and the vandal will be noticed/stopped a lot quicker than the admin.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are defining poor deleter. Is it someone who accidently deletes a good article or someone who misapplies the CSD to an article that should nevertheless be deleted? If the latter, why should we care that much, especially if there is some sort of explanation? If the former, what percentage of speedy deletes are actually unjustified and can you show us an example of the sort of thing that is getting accidently deleted? David D. (Talk) 04:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can give you plenty of examples of items that are both mistagged and deleted improperly. As for why it matters, take a look at WP:WIHSD. People who are sloppy with CSD tags are often sloppy when it comes to deleting articles that should not be deleted. The admin, whom I am personally most critical of, recently deleted 21 articles in 5 mintues... an no, they were not part of "house cleaning" or some other systemic series of deletions that would be conducive to multiple rapid deletions. They were 21 unique deletions of different categories. IMO there is no way that a person can properly assess 21 articles in 5 minutes and delete them accurately.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which of the quicklinks am I supposed to be looking at, Overturned_speedy_deletions? How often are speedy deletion overturned (as a percentage of the total)? As to whether one can delete 21 articles in five minutes, do you know for sure that they do not represent articles selected for deletion over a period of time followed by deleting? David D. (Talk) 12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are admins out there that use bad reasoning, claim IAR is standard operating procedure (it isn't), and do speedily delete articles that do not fit any of the criteria for deletion. As for which of the links to look at. The Survey-Monkey links are 40 articles that were deleted... some of which I agreed with some I disagreed with. But they are 40 articles where I got people to respond to a survey and give feedback on the appropriateness of the deletion. You will notice a fair number where speedy deletion was not the correct response. You can also look at the A7, G1, and G3 surveys. Those were cases wherein I was spot checking people's deletions for specific criteria, and discovered two admins whom I have zero respect for their CSD work (although they are staples in that area.) One of the two I think is oblivious, the other I think feels that he knows better and is thus entitled. While there were two that I noticed when doing my reviews back in Nov/Dec, there are others that have come to my attention as well.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about others here, but when I support an admin at RFA, its because I trust their judgment, not their ability to follow rules to the letter. Mr.Z-man 04:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can use plain English and not have to give the policy/number for reach action we take. It is enough that we follow the spirit of the policy. Chillum 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way... IAR is standard operating procedure. A look at the logs shows this to be true. This is a good thing, it means we don't need a specific little section of the policy to deal with each little thing. Chillum 17:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IAR is over used at CSD. If you are routinely calling upon IAR to delete articles, then that says one of two things. Either, the criteria are wrong and need to be revised, in which ase you need to garner consensus to make said change---but if they are wrong, that shouldn't be a problem. OR you are not adhering to the established consensus and need to do so. The criteria are written in a specific way to ensure that only non-controversial and clearly deletable material gets speedily deleted. If you can't accept those guidelines, then you shouldn't be working in the area of CSD. The fact that people already IAR is not an arguement to stop using the jargon, but rather an argument to encourage the use. If you have to (routinely) IAR, then you are doing something wrong. IAR is a great tool, but IAR should not be the defacto guiding principle.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• How about citing both? The drop-down menu does that anyway. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a fine option for those who wish to do so. But I think plain English is enough. Chillum 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Plain english is not enough. This is rightly one of the more legalistic processes,and the limits need to be carefully followed. Of course if someone says it without using the criterion number and the language is plain enough to be directly translatable into a criterion, I'll fill in the missing criterion, but I routinely always decline any request that does not match a criterion. It's not enough that an article should be deleted, it is necessary that it be should need to be speedy deleted. If someone gives a good reason for deletion that does not match the criteria, its a Prod or AfD. unsigned comment by DGG

What DGG said. The dropdown provides for both, and making a change in how we log our CSD deletions serves no benefit. Also, under IAR, we sometimes delete article about notable subjects because the creator had just started the article. The CSD categories are there for valid reasons. Anything that does not fit should be PRODDED or AFD'd Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How is a bad deletion with a plain English reason any different from a bad deletion that wrongly cites some CSD code? Mr.Z-man 04:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actual practice

I keep seeing it asserted that not rigidly following the categories is bad. However I also see people (including me) asserting that this is in fact standard practice, and doesn't hurt anything. So, I'm asking if there anyone who actually does significant new page patrol who thinks it's important to rigidly follow some set of rules. So far the people objecting to this appear to be unfamiliar with the actual work that gets done, but maybe I'm wrong. If there are people running around making bad deletions, I agree this is a problem that needs fixed. I'll do whatever I can to help fix it. But if the actual problem is just a few people not understanding that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, the solution is to educate those people, not change our standard practices. Friday (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC) PS If someone asserts that there are admins running around deleting improperly, but is unwilling to name them so I can see the logs for myself.. what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? If you're unwilling to name the problem, your complaint is just useless whining. It's OK to say "so-and-so is doing this poorly"- WP is largely self-correcting because criticism is allowed. If there's a real problem here, let's fix it. Friday (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice attempt at an ad hominem attack. I am familiar with the actual practice. I am also familiar with the way people do deletions. I would assert that I have spent more time looking at the deleting habits of various people than most people on this board. As for naming them... and no I don't have to name them. Unlike you, where you chose to make allegations against people, I know better than to throw out names without being prepared to go all the way. If you are worried that I am thinking of you (or a specific person) then ask if that person actually follows community consensus or places his/her own judgement about that of the community? If they follow consensus, then no, I am not talking about them. If they believe that they are free to delete anything and everything, then perhaps I am? I won't say, but if they have that attitude, then it is not the right attitude to have. CSD is an area where people can do more damage to the project than the worst vandal. It is also an area that has a very negative reputation around the project because of people who are too rash in their actions. Almost everybody who writes articles has had negative encounters with CSD'ers. Like I said, I know of two that I know are routinely making mistakes. (One of whom I approached, and was basically blown off and told by that admin that he knows better and that IAR is standard.) I challenge you to A) take a look at the various surveys that have been done showing that issues exist and B) take a look at the actual deletion habits of various admins. It won't take long for you to realize that some admins do a great job, but others simply fly through deleting as much as possible. The problem is that those few admins give the entire process a black eye. If you really want to know who do bad jobs, spend a few hours reviewing deletions, and I can guarantee that you will find more than enough questionable deletions.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so unwilling to identify a problem, but OK. How about giving some examples of the bad deletions, then? I want to know if they were actually bad, or just not bureaucratic enough. One is a real problem, the other is not. Again, if this is a real problem, it should be fixed. Please help us fix it- that's how Wikipedia works. I tried looking at your restore log, to see where you'd been fixing people's mistakes. The first relevant thing I found was Sandwichmas which contains no reason for restoration, and was later deleted by someone else. So far I've got nothing of substance here to help me see the problem. Friday (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed you to this document on numerous occassions, if you want to see examples, there are a few surveys here. So if you want to actually see the issue, then you need to go where directed. I've pointed you to these surveys/examples numerous times, if you can't find them, don't pretend that I haven't given you many examples. As for fixing the problem, there are different ways to fix problems. One is to insult people by making a list and publicizing it calling them immature, the other is to encourage positive behavior and to educate. I choose the later.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did "calling them immature" come from? I don't see Friday suggesting we do that anywhere. So far your method of "fixing" the "problem" doesn't seem to be working too well (I think??) because almost no one but you actually knows what the "problem" is. Personally, I see the Sandwichmas debacle less as "no real reason for restoration" and more as an example of following policy strictly to the letter actively harming the project by keeping crap around for longer. Mr.Z-man 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referencing Friday's essay wherein he named people as immature on his essay on Ageism. [I think the following are some young editors who's immature behavior has been sufficient to be recognized by the community as problematic: Sceptre, Caulde, Philwelch, Majorly, MZMcBride, Secret, Robchurch, Jéské Couriano, Aitias, Giggy, TreasuryTag, Ironholds, iMatthew, Red Thunder, Stewie Griffith, EvilWendyMan, Naerii, TenPoundHammer, Milk's Favorite Cookie, JeanLatore, RyanLupin, Transhumanist, Wisdom89, Cool Cat, MatthewFenton, Badlydrawnjeff, Encyclopedist, Karmfist. A move which, IMO, was not well thought out. Just because he is willing to antagonize people by making allegations, doesn't mean that I am going to follow in his footsteps.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)EDIT: as for making a change. I do believe that I am having an impact. This is apparent via the messages that I get from people who have responded to the various essays/survey's out there---both directly on my talk page or when in discussions elsewhere. I may not reach the person to whom I am most critical, but I hope to be a positive influence on those who are learning the ropes now.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When people complained, I removed the offending content. I wasn't done with it yet, but I saw it was going nowhere useful. As for antagonizing people, why are you bringing up this apparently unrelated issue? Is your point actually "I disagree with you here because you did this other thing in the past that I didn't like", or is there some relevance to the deletion issue that I'm not seeing? If you just want to tell me I'm bad, I have a talk page for that, and you should keep it out of unrelated discussions. Anyway, I looked at some of your lists.. and on a quick spot check, I saw a bunch of content we can't use that got deleted quickly and painlessly. So I still don't see what you're on about. Friday (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you are asking me to do the same thing by naming names. Unless I am willing to go through the dhrama to get somebody desysopped, that isn't a smart or nice move. And yes, there are a bunch that were deleted properly. My lists were not "here are just the bad" but rather actual "surveys" wherein I looked at 20-25 items that were tagged for deletion a certain way and evaluated how they were deleted. In some cases, there wasn't much of an issue. In other cases, CSD was clearly wrong in way too large of a percentage.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First there was no ad hom attack above from Friday. I too don't understand the need for this secrecy, if there are a few bad admins, or is it more than a few?, why not just say. With regard to "If you really want to know who do bad jobs, spend a few hours reviewing deletions, and I can guarantee that you will find more than enough questionable deletion", well maybe, maybe not. Asking for examples is reasonable as it gives us a context for your whole argument. Without context it's hard to see the problem. If this is really about documenting the deletions, just for the sake of it, then i don't think that is necessary.

As to harming the project, any reasonable writer who has a new article speedy deleted would realise that it might not have been in a fit state. The key here is to give writers some time to get the new article fleshed out. I suspect the real issue is that articles that might develop are not given the chance, rather than the wrong or no CSD category is given. You really think that a correctly labeled deletion is going to be any less irritating than one with plain english? David D. (Talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• When it's my own speedy, I use plain english and Wikilink the policy. When I'm cleaning out the db category, I'm usually too lazy. I think people should tend toward using plain English and that's what I'll be doing. --causa sui ^talk 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll say one thing, I know one user who uses deletion summaries like "nn" and "shit." This is utterly unhelpful and provides no meaningful explanation or recourse for the user who wrote the article. No action should be taken that doesn't provide an explanation to a user contesting that action on how to proceed, and ideally a sufficiently detailed explanation of why that action was taken without having to be a community insider. Dcoetzee 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not only that, but especially the latter is (or should be), totally unacceptable. A prime example of an administrative action that appear "arbitrary or capricious" or "based on poor methodology and evidence", and as such, has "a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia", definitely harmful to the project. decltype (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I occasionally go on a recent changes patrol, and I find it hard to resist the temptation to go off the reservations as it were, which is why I don't do them often. It's hard to get it right when you're faced with an article like "Glitter Industries is an industry leading jewellry maker." Now I was here when CSD 7 was proposed, so I know from the discussions that that is by the book not a failure of A7, but come on... I've seen these deleted as no context as well. I'm prepared to allow leeway because the way I see it an admin is an admin because we trust their judgement. I have no issue with any admin backing their judgement, as long as the instance that judgement is called into question they react in a reasonable manner. Regarding deletion summaries, I've been wondering about deleting articles with a summary that reads something like "not notable", that just feels a wee bit wrong to me. Swearing in a deletion summary should be a reason to consider handing in the mop, if you ask me. It's not too much to ask for civility is it? Yes it is a veneer, but there is a reason for the veneer, and that reason is allowing us all to rub along nicely. Hiding T 11:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well swearing is another thing altogether and not really where this discussion started. There is one camp that wants every deletion to be coded correctly. There is another camp that says a plain English explanation should be enough, especially since many people get the CSD code wrong anyway. I have to agree with the latter argument that there seems too much process going on here. David D. (Talk) 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think most of the former camp would like both a CSD code and a plain English explanation. At least, that's what I'd like: the CSD code to show that the admin has the support of policy, and the plain English to explain why it meets that policy in a common-sense way.--Aervanath (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I was answering Friday's question about what actual practise is. Hiding T 10:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

no consensus due to no participation

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Palace (talker) (2nd nomination) - this just seems like an absurd result due to following this policy literally. This page says "If a debate has already been relisted once, the closer should consider carefully if a no-consensus close would be more appropriate than a second relisting." but I don't think it's referring to cases where there's been no participation, but rather to cases where there's been lots of discussion but no consensus despite a relisting.

The problem is that when there's no participation even after 13 days, it's generally because the nomination said everything that there was to be said, and no one feels like commenting to say "me too" (which is frowned upon). It's almost as if you're punished for writing a strong nomination - there ends up being no debate, because there was no counter-argument to the nomination, then someone reads this page literally and thinks that means no consensus.

I think this page should be rewritten to clarify that no-participation AFDs should continue to be relisted until someone offers an opinion, or until an admin just decides the nom is strong enough and if someone were going to object they've had plenty of time to do so. Otherwise you're keeping articles despite no one being able to make a keep argument, which seems like an absurd outcome. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is a last resort. WP:PROD is useful in cases where the nominator thinks no-one will care. I would note on that AfD that the non-administrator probably ought not to have closed it. It is better that an admin closes it, giving a "ruling" so that at least the issue is settled. Skomorokh 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In this specific case I didn't use PROD because there was an AFD 3 years ago. I was under the impression PROD couldn't be used if there had been a prior AFD? --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I realise that and sympathise with you in this instance; I was simply commenting that PROD can be deployed for most articles of this class. Skomorokh 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed twice that AFD nominations with good rationales but no participation be treated as expired prods to cover situations just like this. Last proposal here. Both times it was rejected. As far as relisting goes, I already relisted this discussion once and back when AFD was 5 days, I would have relisted it twice. However, now a second relist keeps a discussion open for half a month so we have to ask ourselves how long do we want to keep a discussion open if nobody participates? Others may disagree but I think the best thing to do in these cases is to close it but allow a second AFD to be immediately filed if someone wishes to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But you're keeping an article when no one can provide a reason for keeping it. That seems like a worse outcome than a 20 day AFD instead of a 13 day AFD. Again, it feels like I might as well just write bad nominations, since they'd get more participation and a faster close. I'm not being facetious - this specific AFD seems like a case where the article got kept because I provided a good reason for deletion, I think we need to make a change so this doesn't happen again. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Keeping an article when sufficient evidence is not presented to delete. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't understand what you mean. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried Google, Google Books and Google Scholar, all in vain. I even looked at the external link, which would be a primary source. An article that doesn't have a single usable source after it has had an "unreferenced" tag for half a year seems a no-brainer, so I !voted. I think opening a coatrack thread is the right thing to solve this kind of problem. ;-) --Hans Adler (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• If nobody has added to an AFD, I say treat it like an expired prod. The admin should validate perform due dilligence and check to see if the article is not-notable, but you have at least one voice already !voting delete---the nominator.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed with Balloonman; in relisted AfDs where the nomination is not obviously deficient and no arguments have been made by commentors, it should be treated as an expired prod, resulting in an outcome of delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Could this be any more complicated?

Is it just me, or would it be easier just to put a delete button on every article with a text box to type the reason in... I don't understand why everything on Wikipedia is a 300 step 8-month long process. --69.112.198.201 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you log in and create and account, there are tools you can use that do just that. See WP:TWINKLE.--Aervanath (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO getting an article deleted should be "hard". We are here to create articles, not make them go away. However, sometimes an article has to be deleted and we have policies and guidelines that state when we must do that. Having to learn those policies, guidelines, and what hoops to jump through to propose an article for deletion keeps the load on AFD manageable. If we had a convenient "button" for proposing an article for deletion that any passerby can push if they think an article "sucks", we'd likely have a thousand or more AFDs a day.

That being said, there are tools that make the process easier. Twinkle is one of those but even that requires one to create an account and activate the tool. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)