Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Courtesy Blanking of Arbitration Decisions

It seems to me that there needs to be a policy for courtesy blanking of arbitration-related pages if it is to become standard practice. Jfwambaugh 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:CBLANK. >Radiant< 11:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing there covering non-heated, non-libelious discussions. If courtesy blanking is going to be used to protect users who have arbitrated against from turning up in google searches, then WP:CBLANK needs to be modified. Jfwambaugh 13:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, it could be the proverbial exception. At any rate, the ArbCom blanking a decision page is unrelated to the policy governing article deletion. >Radiant< 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All of these pages are not archived by search engines, so I've removed this section. This can be handled case-by-case, lets not run afoul of WP:BURO. Prodego ^talk 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added it back. AFDs are not supposed to be spidered but not all search engines honor robot.txt. Courtesy-blanking is rare (and should probably be even rarer) but it's still sometimes appropriate. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are (rare) instances for this to be used, but does it really need to be spelled out? Also, if a search engine ignores robots.txt and indexes a page it shouldn't, it will probably also index all of the other pages, including every revision in the history. Prodego ^talk 05:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably want to talk to one of the Developers to be sure but I thought that there was a technical reason why the search engines can't/don't spider into our pagehistory. I remember seeing it come up in discussion one time but don't remember where. Sorry I can't be more help. Rossami (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is because they are told not to archive pages with a /w/ in the url (as opposed to /wiki/) in robots.txt, the same file that excludes pages like AfD and RfA. Prodego ^talk 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkbird

The above referenced page and its contents are confusing to me. Could someone who understands the whole deletion process please take a look? I have tried this message elsewhere with no action. Thanks in advance! --Stormbay 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be saying that a whole set of pages have been merged into another, and is thus proposing the deletion of the original set of pages. Or is the whole process of AfD the point of confusion? SamBC(talk) 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Then all the individual articles listed above should be turned into redirects instead of sitting with afd tags? I was confused because the tags didn't lead to an afd discussion. They should have been removed and redirects done; correct? --Stormbay 03:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, if they really have been merged then it's reasonable to be bold and replace the articles with redirects and then there's no need for AFD at all. However, procedurally speaking, now that the AfD has been started it's supposed to run its course (although an admin could close early if there's a consensus to redirect). The AFD templates should be repaired to point to the actual discussion, if they currently don't. AIUI, anyway. SamBC(talk) 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your input. However, I don't know how to repair the template. Thanks! --Stormbay 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a quick check of a few of them seems to indicate that they're working fine. SamBC(talk) 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD closed - it's totally unnecessary, we don't delete redirects after merges, due to GFDL compliance. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they should've been redirects in any case, but at the time that the AfD was started they weren't, they were still the full articles. However, let this stand as a point for people who don't yet realise to learn from - after a merge, the original article(s) will become a redirect in almost all circumstances. Is this not clear enough in policies/guidelines/help pages? SamBC(talk) 11:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

I've seen a handful of cases where cleanup templates were removed by noms for prod/csd, etc. Not something that really makes a lot of sense to me - is there a valid reason to do so? Not seeing one mentioned here, at first glance, and can't think of any myself. They seem to back up any nom. (Do they do so to excess?) MrZaius^talk 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

deletion policy is not a method to force article improvement

something should be said that if you think the article needs improvement or could be improved, do not use afd. people are using afd to bully other people into improving articles or having those deleted. that is not a good use of deletion. it is not clear that it is not a good use of deletion on the page. it should say 'do not nominate articles that need improvement, if you can figure out how to make the article better, do that first' the deletion pages are full of things that have citations available, but people nominate for deletion. that's a problem because it deletes good work and good faith effort. --Buridan 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. But unfortunately I see lots of articles tagged on top and on bottom, and nobody rushes to address the iussues posted. Only the ultimate threat of deletion makes people move.

I would suggest a wider use of threatening tags of kind {{notability}}, which explicitely warns that if the issues will not be addressed, the articler may be deleted. IMO the same explicite warning must be added to {{unreferenced}} and others. ("unreferened" says: "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." But if a template is placed onto the whole article, not on section, it must explicitely say that the whole article is a fair game for the AfD).

Also I would suggest to write explicitely in the policy that new artickles and articles significantly editied only by 1-3 editors (typo fixing, tagging, categorizing, etc. don't count), then the article should not be genetrally nominated for deletion without preceding warning, unless the article is really harmful for wikipedia.

Any thoughts?Mukadderat 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why create different rules for different articles? Instruction creep is something to avoid. Wikipedia's rules are complicated enough already. --Phirazo 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

there is also no indication that the wording of a tag has any effect. what does have an effect is individual WPedians fixing articles and then sending them for deletion only if they can not find decent sources. DGG (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. WP:SOFIXIT is the proper response to an article that needs improvement. If you are not willing or able to do the work yourself, then move on. Leave a tag to inform others of what you found if you think it is necessary. But nominating it for AfD to force others to do what you won't is wiki-bullying and should be strongly discouraged. AfD is for hopeless cases only. Dhaluza 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A Faraway Ancient Country

An Admin used Speedy Deletion to delete my article. After I proved it did not quaillify for Speedy Deletion, he refused to undelete it. Here is a copy from his talk page. He has began to give petty replies and is tring to ignore the subject instead of admitting he jumped to the conclusion.

"I was told you deleted my article because you thought I was avertising it. It's a good book that I picked up off of Google books. What is wrong with making a page about it? --JRTyner 02:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an advertisement for a non-notable self-published book. IrishGuy ^talk 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I bought it after reading the newspaper article, I was adding sources when you deeted it. --JRTyner 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it was an advertisement for a non-notable self-published book. A single article in a local paper from the author's hometown doesn't make notability. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And again I'm telling you that you didn't give me a chance to list references or external links. You deleted my first article without even giving me a chance to defend it. I'm just asking for the chance to defend a book that I like. --JRTyner 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does a non-notable self-published book meet the inclusion criteria? IrishGuy ^talk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your case must be extremely weak, seeing as you have changed your argument. First, you said it was "Blatant advertisement." Next, you changed tack and said it was a self published book by an unknown author. You then said it did not meet the "Inclusion criteria," and provided a link. The link was to the EXCLUSION criteria, under which my article does not fall. --JRTyner 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was an advertisement, hence the deletion. YOU continue to claim that sources would have made the difference. I am asking exactly how. IrishGuy ^talk 01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

The article was about a book I bought off of Google books. The artlce took no sides, and didn't promote the book in any way, even though I thought it was interesting and funny. All of the other books I like already have a page, so I thought this would be a good subject for my first article. The page had no links or information on how to buy the book. I didn't even mention how I bought it. I had put a brief summary, a few facts the aurthor had mentioned in a news paper article and and listed on her website, plus the catagory. I had just added the publisher's name, the ISBN number, how long the book is, and a few other encyclopedic facts when it was deleted. --JRTyner 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because there was not an ounce of truth in your last reply. That was the first time I had seen that page. The only simularity in that discription and mine is "four years of research, 80 sources, 190 Biblical passages, and the efforts of three theologians, each with a Master's Degree in Divinity", and that I got from her website, and I cited it, so there is no copyright violation. You are trying to bend the Wikipedia rules because you are biased against this book. --JRTyner 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the book. How exactly would I be biased against it? You are wasting my time. You blatantly advertised a book you want more people to read...as evident by the fact that you won't let it go. You violated copyright. This would fail in AfD because, as I have already noted, it fails WP:BOOK. We are done here. Stop harassing me. IrishGuy ^talk 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"How exactly would I be biased against it?" You're biased against Catholics, or women who write about their faith.

I have proved using the Wikipedia definition that it is not advertisment.

I won't let it go because you are being a bigot.

You know I properly cited it so I didn't violated copyright.

"This would fail in AfD because, as I have already noted, it fails WP:BOOK." Then as an Admin, you must undelete it and follow proper AFD guidelines.

"This would fail in AfD because, as I have already noted, it fails WP:BOOK." I already proved it does not fail WP:BOOK, and even if it did, it would quailify for AFD not speedy delete.

"We are done here. Stop harassing me." You know I'm not harassing you. We are discussing the deletion of my article, and you are throwing this out because you know I proved you wrong and you don't want to admit it because you are biased, which means you should not have deleted it in the first place. Biased admins are not allowed to use their power to further their intolerance. --JRTyner 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC) "

--JRTyner 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that what I am looking for is a third party to mediate so this disscusion won't become uncivil. --JRTyner 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for mediation, nor is it deletion review. I think it became uncivil the first time you called me a bigot. IrishGuy ^talk 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I appoligised for that but you were treating the book with hatred and intolerance. Then you started deleting by replies which is against the rules. --JRTyner 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article must be restored, because Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a guideline, not a binding policy. This is one word against another. Admins do not have any editing privileges begore other wikipedians. The intolerance to a fellow wikipedian is a bad trait of an admin. Why don't you retore it, give the contributor a chance and then put for deletion? Mukadderat 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This case deserves to be discussed in the "Deletion policy" page. It is not the first time I see such hard intolerance to a newcomer. During a year I am an editor, wikipedia has notable shifted towards impatience and intolerance. What is it: new generation of admins? Fatifue of admins that are so tired that don't see to talk with other people? I think that Speedy Deletion has become quite misused. Even {{prod}} taf is supposed to sit 5 days. But here click, surprize! Yo are dead! Speedy was intended to deal with utter garbage. Any minimally disputable cases must go via community. No one is allowed to feel an ultimate unbeatable judge. Mukadderat 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that Wikipedia:Notability (books) in its first lines says failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.. Also, CSD A7 lists "person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content", but not books, shops, electircal devices, brands, horse breeds, etc. It lists (and rightly so) only the most common vanity cases. Mukadderat 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the style in which it was deleted might have been harsh (I'm no expert on deleting things) it does seem hard to defend an entry for the book at this time as Google doesn't even pop much sources. Perhaps after some mainstream media coverage post some reviews of the book? Benjiboi 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I withdraw the request to restore the article, but the admin must really read the rule book. He violated the rule. Period. He is an admin. Supposed to work by the book. Otherwise there is a suspicion in the growth of over-confidence. Mukadderat 04:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place to raise such matters. I would say, however, that it is overwhelmingly likely that even if the article was restored as an improper speedy deletion, it would be deleted if listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Stormie 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote before, this is the issue not of restoring, but enforcing admins to follow the policies. With power comes rsponsibility. I don't see that the admin admitted that he does not know rules well. Mukadderat 04:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with deletion

I have 2 problems with deletions:

1. Often they appear very hasty and arbitrary: I have had an admittedly very brief article about a world-class academic deleted within ten seconds of my putting it up.

2. Once they have been deleted, it is difficult to get them reinstated or even to find the original copy. This can be v. frustrating esp. to new users. Also, I want now to start a new article (on 'xtimeline' as it happens). I find that there has been one before. I'd like to incorporate this into what I do now .... Where can I find it?

Johnbibby 10:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm frustrated too ... It happened to me many times that I completely lose the content of a whole article because I forgot I had to save it somewhere else everytime I hit the wikipedia save button. It is also very frustrating to see a 4 line licence decription on a picture being completely lost whitin 5 sec because of someone (I believe robot) got trigered.

Why is there so many confusing option to upload image that lead nowhere !!! but instant deletion !!! I decided my selfmade image would be used for non-commercial use and educative purposes,,, It's up to you,,, bye wiki... YOUR BLOATED ... Those are my today'$ donation$.

--Transisto (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need deletion notification?

Currently, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states:

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.

If this should be changed or deleted is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Deletion request notification. — Sebastian 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Make the content of deleted pages accessible

I want to revive an old discussion Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_22#Why_make_deleted_pages_invisible.3F. I think it should be

possible somehow to see the content of a deleted page.
I agree that deleted pages

• should not have the glory of being on the wiki and
• should not show up on internet searches.

However, I think users should have access to the content, so they

• can see any potentially valuable information,
• can judge and understand the reasons of the deletion and
• avoid the mistake of posting a similar article, in the case they are re-creating it.

The best way, I think, is to find a technical way how to satisfy all arguments above. Just a first idea, to have a interface which will email the content of the article at the users's request.

Turingsk 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No. There is a good reason we deleted the article, and that should be noted in the deletion log or (in the case of an AfD) extensively in the deletion discussion, which should be linked from the deletion log. We should not email or otherwise deliver such content to users as a general rule, for GFDL reasons, and because the deleted articles often are copyright violations, attack pages, BLP violations, ... We should not distribute such content for any reason and in any way. There can be exceptions, but the general rule should stay that deleted content is not made accessible to users by Wikipedia (it may be accessible to Google cache, mirrors, ..., but that is not our responsibility any longer). Fram 11:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this argument, I did not realize the copyright issue. I agree this is a problem. However, I somehow feel that one of the free licenses' goal is to save the work, so no one has to do what already has been done. (You can see an example of people asking for the old content even on this page Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Problems_with_deletion). This of course does not apply to copyrighted contents.

I don't agree that we should not distribute attack pages and BLP violations. There is a way how to notify the receiver that the content is not considered verifiable, good, etc. I can imagine even the attacked person wondering "What kind of attacks are against me on Wikipedia?"

I think only the copyrighted contents should be removed and a reference to the source should be kept there. Turingsk 12:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If a user has a good-faith reason for wanting something back (perhaps in order to take it to some other project or GFDL-compliant destination), he/she can request it at one of the Deletion review subpages. Those requests are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and allow the opportunity to properly balance all the competing interests mentioned above. I think that's a far better approach than the broad-brush "expose everything" proposal. Give DRV a try and see if it meets your needs. But if you really want to collect those attack and BLP-violation pages, you're going to have an uphill battle. The community is strongly opposed to perpetuating those privacy violations. Rossami (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I and many other admins will also email copies to anyone wanting them in good faith. I have been known to ask first for a promise they will not be reinserted in WP without consensus. I can see good reasons for wanting some of the material, but some really does need to be kept hidden. DGG (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Users

Is it possible to delete users? IE vandals or inactive users? Hackboy1 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, users can be blocked though. Oysterguitarist 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Explicating rationales when closing AfDs

I've noticed that a lot of AfD discussions (maybe most) are closed with the following comment: "The result was keep/delete," and nothing more. Those who participate in AfD discussions are asked to provide reasons for their recommendations. Shouldn't it also be standard practice for closing admins to report what the rationale for deleting or keeping an article was? If deciding whether to delete or keep an article were a simple matter of tallying keep and delete recommendations, a simple "The result was..." would be fine, but AfDs are supposed to be discussions, not votes, where arguments and policy count for more than numbers supporting or opposing a particular action. Stating the rationale(s) for deletion when closing an AfD is more consistent with the idea that it is a discussion rather than a vote; it can help editors better understand AfD precedents; and it can help editors understand whether a deleted article may or may not be re-created, and what issues must be addressed in order to avoid another deletion in case it is re-created. The alternative to this seems to me little better than a simple "Keep/Delete. ~~~~" from AfD participants. I realize admins have many responsibilities, and there may be AfD backlogs, but if admins are already taking the time to read and evaluate the arguments made in these discussions, typing a sentence in explanation of the decision adds a relatively neglible amount of time to the process. Nick Graves 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For difficult or ambiguous discussions, that is the norm. In fact, I've seen some closing statements that ran for paragraphs as the closing admin laid out all of his/her reasoning during the close. But that's overkill for most discussions. Remember that in the ideal situation, the sole role of the closing admin is to determine if the community has reached rough consensus on the issue, not to decide the issue itself. When both the weight of argument and the weight of numbers are in agreement and when consensus is clear to any reasonable reader of the discussion, there is often nothing that the closing admin could add that would make the decision any clearer. Why clutter up the page and create an opportunity for misunderstanding? Save the long rationales for those situations where the consensus is not quite so clear. (That said, if you see a closure that you think was not so obvious, it's entirely reasonable to ask the closing admin to return to the page to more thoroughly explain his/her reasoning.) Rossami (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

There is an inconsistency in the fact that we still do this despite the fact that AFD and RFAR are excluded in robots.txt - The risk of the page becoming the top hit in google was the only reason given for doing this, and that is no longer the case. If we continue doing this, these areas should be removed from robots.txt so that legitimate searches can include non-courtesy-blanked pages. —Random832 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all search engines comply with robots.txt. And, many pages were indexed prior to the exclusion. If a page merits/merited courtesy blanking, it still does regardless of the robots.txt exclusion. GRBerry 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do any pages that do _not_ merit courtesy blanking have a legitimate reason to be excluded via robots.txt, then? It seems like we have, right now, two solutions to the same problem, each with their own negative side effects, and with no apparent benefit to using both. —Random832 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We exist to service those seeking knowledge on a subject. Deletion discussions don't help those seeking knowledge of a subject. We provide a better service by keeping (as best we can) all deletion discussions out of search engine results, so that they can find relevant knowledge, whether or not it is on Wikipedia. GRBerry 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anyone curious why something is not in WP, will still be able to come here and search for it. I have never understood why anything other than the actual articles was searchable by outside search engines. DGG (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Yes, this edit is a "change to the meaning of the clause." But it's not a major change. And it's also an improvement to newly inserted language, no reason to revert straight away. Anyway, let's discuss.

In my opinion the current (disputed) policy language (requiring an article "about" a term) is needlessly restrictive. Even the WP:NEO guideline is less restrictive ("such as ..."). For example, the article Dialogues on Bakhtin: Interdisciplinary Readings is not about the term logosphere. The current language says it can't be used because it contains only one paragraph about the meaning of "logosphere". Replacing "...about" with "described in..." solves that problem in a way similar to the "hoax" clause. The current language is also awkward, and longer than necessary. Avb 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion should be a last resort

...because some of the reasons for deletion are fixable. I personally do not like admins who speedy delete pages on "lack of sources" or "redirect to nonexisitent page" because it looks like "delete first and fix later" to me. If it can be fixed, then fix it.

In short, some editors are too trigger happy with the delete button. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles should not be speedy deleted merely for lacking sources ... can you point out an instance where this happened? As for redirects to nonexistent pages ... if another target exists, the redirect can be retargeted; if not, there really is no reason to keep it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Right — if a redirect is mistargeted, it shouldn't be any harder to recreate it than to retarget it. (Well, unless the redirect is categorized, but categorized redirects are unorthodox and generally unnecessary.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question

How does one find pages that have been deleted? I assume that Wikipedia stores these deleted versions, their talk pages, and deletion discussions somewhere. How does one find them? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Administrators can recover them. Other users, by design, can not. If there is a particular page that you would like to see, go to the Deletion review page. There you can request a temporary undeletion (for example, to conduct a transwiki to a sister project where the content might be better suited) or to recover the content for your personal use. Content with a copyright violation or other serious policy violation won't generally be restored but good faith requests will usually be granted fairly quickly. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, you also asked about the deletion discussions. Remember that if a page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, it does not require discussion. But if a discussion was opened, it will usually be at a page titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName. You can sometimes find it through the search engine. Rossami (talk)
• Like Rossami said, you can post at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_review if you want to view some deleted content. You can also just message/email the deleting admin and ask them to send you the raw contents, or ask any admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. However you decide to request the contents of a deleted page, good faith requests are generally granted, with few exceptions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked, and there doesn't appear to be a deletion discussion about this particular subject. (Computer scientist Ronald Fagin)

I don't want to start a whole thread here, but I think editors should be able to access these old versions. Here's what I happened. I searched for a subject. It wasn't here. I went outside Wikipedia to find out what I needed to know. I came back to Wikipedia, and there was the button "create this page." I thought, why not, I'll create a stub with what I've learned, so the next time someone looks for it, it's here. I see that the page has been deleted in the past. I want to know why, since if:

1. If the thing I'm searching for isn't considered notable, I should forget about it.
2. If the thing I'm searching for has the same name, but is different, and is notable, I should make my stub.
3. If the thing I'm searching for is deemed notable, but the article was deleted for some other reason than notability, I should make my stub.

You see the problem? An editor should be able to easily access the old article and talk page, so he can make these kind of judgements. I hate to bother an administrator about something so trivial. As it is, in the interest of congeniality, I'm going to forget about it. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You misremember what article you are thinking of. The one you link too was deleted 2.5 years ago. Revision 1 had one word, revision 2 had that word and a deletion tag. GRBerry 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the subject. So I should make my stub? Because there never really was an article on Ronald Fagin? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure! And don't hesitate to contact admins with inquiries about deleted versions of pages, especially if you're thinking about creating an article. While the reason for deletion is generally given in the deletion summary, you should feel free to ask for additional clarification. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been proposals for deletion systems that would basically involve simply blanking a page and thus allowing any editor to view the history (see for example Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system). Ultimately, however, there must be a system by which at least some articles can be deleted and not publically accessible - copyright violations, for instance, if we allowed anyone to view a deleted copyvio article we would effectively be illegally distributing the copyrighted material. Anyway I'm always happy to help with queries regarding deleted articles. --Stormie (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Undoing a merger

In many AfDs the outcome is a merger of the nominated article with some other article. Does undoing that merger and recreating the article require WP:DRV? I can't find any mention of that situation in the this policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no. Merging is an editorial decision. It can be suggested at AfD, but it is carried out as an editorial process, not an administrative process. Blanking and redirecting is different, but genuine merging can be done and undone (following discussion) without recourse to DRV. To undo a merger that had consensus though, you should say what has changed (eg. increased notability, parent article is now too long, so a split per WP:SUMMARY is needed). This is similar to how requested moves works. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the helpful reply. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW name change

I've opened up a discussion discussing a change to the name and wording of WP:SNOW on its talk page. The discussion is found here. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Avoidance of AfD through redirect, proposed for efficiency.

I noticed a current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the Philippines Astronomical Society. In spite of the title, this is actually an AfD for six allegedly non-notable clubs at the University of the Philippines, Dilman campus. No participant actually familiar with these clubs, and both willing and able to search Tagalog or other non-English sources for notability proof has shown up, and the season may mean that those who might otherwise do this do not have computer access.

At least some of the club articles have been edited by multiple editors. Deletion not only requires admin attention both to the AfD and to the delete process if Delete is the result, but also one of two additional problems: later admin attention to requests for the deleted articles, or, alternatively, users mystified at the disappearance of the article they were sure was there, when they return and notice it, which could take months.

Notability standards are often not clear in application, and I suspect that the only reason that there is not more difficult debate over notability is that the vast majority of editors don't notice the AfDs during the period before the notice is up. I've seen this with voting methods deletions; many of those articles were created by experts who have lives outside of Wikipedia, they may not even check watchlists at all, some of them, or others do use watchlists but may not log in frequently enough.

I'm proposing that the procedure of redirecting allegedly non-notable articles is far more efficient. In this case, the six club articles could be redirected to a master article for clubs on that campus, it already exists. The nominators for deletion could have done this with far less time than it took to set up an AfD. Indeed, I would simply have done it myself if not for the pending AfD, which asks that the article not be blanked (though a blanked article could be accessed from an AfD discussion by a link to history). With truly non-notable articles, in the vast majority of cases, the process would be *done*. Only if someone notices the deletion (and I'd put a notice on the Talk page of the redirection target), and objects, perhaps undoing it, does even discussion need to take place, and it becomes an editorial issue, which can often be resolved between two or a very few editors, without the Sword of Damocles of Deletion hanging over them. If, then, some party considers an AfD to be necessary, it can take place, and there will be more fair representation of all sides in it.

As Wikipedia increases in size, debates over notability, we can predict, will continue to increase. This would be a way to reduce administrator attention necessary to deal with deletions; so much so, that I'd want, were I an admninistrator, to see that redirection was tried first before I would even consider allowing an AfD. I've seen some suggest this in AfDs, with "non-admin closure" of the AfD when no objection appeared. We *must* find ways to reduce argument over AfDs, and this would be one. The other is what User:DGG has called a "clear bright line" for what is notable and what is not. I wish him luck. I don't think it is possible in a finite amount of time, notability is not a fixed quality of topics, it is actually a relationship between people and facts, and, just, as for individuals, notability shifts from time to time, so it is for societies, and each subculture has its own de facto notability standards. Which one or which set should dominate on Wikipedia and how do we figure it out?

The use of redirection is not appropriate for frivolous articles where there is no possible doubt regarding notability, nor, obviously, for articles with offensive or illegal content. These, indeed, probably don't require AfD either, PROD is sufficient, or direct admin action. Articles in the notability grey zone that are redirected might be deleted later, though I question whether or not it is worth the effort.

So, I'd like to see some discussion of this here, and, if some consensus appears, an addition of redirection to the policy as a recommended alternative to AfD, reserving AfD process for actual contention. (Redirection is already mentioned, but not in relation to AfD, I think.) The AfD I mentioned above, quite possibly, would have required no debate at all, especially if it were based on some clear guideline, and AfDs do *not* establish guidelines, they don't establish precedent at all, each AfD is unique. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people agree with you. That's why there is already a section on the page titled Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion which specifically addresses merging. There are a couple of very good essay pages that expand on your point. You can find some of it at meta:Association of Mergist Wikipedians. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of new articles

Okay, is it just me, or should there be some sort of grace period for newly created articles before they can be nominated for deletion? I've seen pages nominated for deletion within an hour of the page first being posted, often for reasons involving the article not being complete enough. I feel that in these situations it is infinitely more productive to put a stub tag on the article, rather than simply deciding that the only pages allowed are ones which spring fully formed from the womb. As I understand it, the entire point of wiki magic is that if you simply tag an article as requiring improvement, and let it sit for a day or two, you'll have one of two things on your hands. An article that nobody cares about or a completely valid article of sufficient length and detail. Once you know that nobody cares about an article, I feel that that is the appropriate time to put it up for deletion, and if the article transforms into a better one, then there's no need to bother it further.--72.230.79.43 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why articles for proposed deletion have five days. User:Krator (t c) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• This has been discussed before. I agree with you, per WP:IMPERFECT but heh, what do I know. People like to delete things. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort by persons within the community to be self appointed "experts" on Notability. By what criteria are these "Administrators" guided that governs their use of the Speedy Deletion functionality? It seems that there are those users out there who make no attempt at discovery and simply apply Speedy Deletion to articles according to their own fancy and whims. If there is no surefire way of contributing to wikipedia without the necessity of vigorously maintaining articles that one has created, in fear of administrators abuse of power, then this whole "community" based effort is a sham. There should be some mechanism by which newly created articles are giving a de facto grace period by which they have the "necessary" time frame by which they can grow accordingly. Zenasprime (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an easy accusation to make - and it's commonly made (and sometimes justified). Before you lambaste administrators as a whole, you need to spend some time on the New Pages patrol. There is an astonishing amount of deliberate vandalism and utter junk added to Wikipedia that has absolutely nothing to do with our sole mission of writing an encyclopedia. The folks who volunteer for the NewPages patrol do make mistakes but overall they do a remarkable job. They do not, in my experience, make decisions based on fancy or whim but honestly try to apply Wikipedia's established standards as fairly and honestly as they humanly can. And when honest mistakes happen, there are clear processes to correct those mistakes as well. (See WP:DRV for more on that part of the process.)
The idea of a grace period is suggested fairly regularly. Unfortunately, it has been tested and rejected. Given the volume of junk we regularly have to deal with, it did far more harm than good. Rossami (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but every article I have written so far has been deleted more then once and on every occasion the adminstrator made no effor to read or communicate with me regarding the delection except in a copy/paste fashion of someone who has not done any prior research into the articles in question. Perhaps this isn't endemic but there are certainly administrators out there who are abusing their power. Time SHOULD be given to new articles to be fleshed out by the community at large without the necessity of maintaining an omnipresent vigilence over such articles. There needs to be some sort of mediation regarding "trigger happy" administrators who have become numbed by the "volume of junk". Zenasprime (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether due to the malicious attempts at the public to manipulate information or the opressive measures by it's administrators to manage content, it have become obvious to me that this COMMUNITY based effort at an information repository in it current technical state, is a complete and utter failure. At this point, the usefulness of a community based mechanism for presenting information is not existant in this product. As a consequence, I don't see the point in continuing to stand guard over articles that I, as a member of the community, feel justified in contributing to this effort, in order to protect them, not from other community members, but from the sites managers themselves. It's become painfully obvious that this site has become a novelty only by the administrators, for the administrators, rather then it's intended purpose as something managed by the community at large. Unlike other disgruntled users, however, will not delete my profile but instead leave it available to the community in order to make know the issue I percieve as relavent to it's own destruction. How can anyone hope to participate in an affair by amatures if those running the show never let us get up to speed with the content we provide? As a good friend of mine often says "Good luck with that!" Zenasprime (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• A closely related discussion started at the Village Pump was moved to WT:CSD, which is where any problem of rapid deletion of new articles would be most likely to arise. Suggest discussion be consolidated there; specifically at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Propose_a_modification_to_Deletion_policy_.28specifically_WP:CSD.23A7.29

• • I second the motion; there are a number of discussions of this issue ongoing around wikipedia, the central focus seems to be on CSD:A7, there are clearly issues which need to be discussed & (hopefully) resolved, & it makes sense to consolidate it all in one place. Lx 121 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)