Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Abuse of Deletion Policy

NetOracle has been nominating a large amount of webcomics for deletion if they only vaguely fit the deletion criteria. 68.42.37.75 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Reform

I believe that moderators are abusing their power to delete pages. For instance, there is a moderator that is racist against anything non=Japanese, who deletes anime pages simply because he doesn't think they are "Japanese" enough. In actuality, there are several like this, but the one I'm talking about is Farix. He voted to delete the article for an anime fansite just because he didn't think it was Japanese enough. I think that mods should have to give legitimate reasons for deleting something, not just personal feelings. Just like in articles, there should be a requirement to cite sources. I've been going to Wikipedia for a while now, and I'm starting to lose my faith in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlindJustice (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello. My name is Alex Hammer. I am having trouble signing in, otherwise I would look whether there is a space on my personal page (or some other section) on which to discuss the following (I also did a search on Contact Us, and the deletion page looked more relevant for the following). I created an article entitled Politics 2.0, which documented long references/artcles on the term from the New York Times, GigaOm and The Politico, all major sources. Here's another one: Technorati indicating the term Politics 2.0 searched approaching (and sometimes over) 100 or more times per day http://www.technorati.com/search/Politics+2.0 . I also detailed how Internet and Web 2.0 strategies, technologies and tools are about the hottest area in Politics, influencing all the presidential campaigns in a major major way, and furthermore how such content is only covered in a completely marginal, sliver of a way across other Wikipedia articles. Like Web 2.0, and Business 2.0, which Wikipedia has articles for, Politics 2.0 is now well recognized.

The article was deleted and I don't know whether a trace or history of the fuller discussion still exists (couldn't find it). If anyone can get this to the right editor, I'd like to discuss this if this is possible. Do I need to now open also a new Wikipedia account? My email is hscpub@aol.com (I am a professional person, former candidate for Governor of Maine and owner of five division media company, now run a new blog that is jumping up Alexa!) Thank you very much.

Deletion Process Problems

Recently, an article I started about an American blogger was nominated for deletion. Such things can happen, but this was the third time it had happened in a year. The first AfD resulted in a keep. The blogger, referenced by the Wall Street Journal's and the Nation Review's online sites, had just begun to substitute for Michelle Malkin, and thus notability was difficult to deny. The second AfD was rescinded when the nominator was informed of the first AfD. After this, I moved the article, due to the anonymous blogger becoming more popular than his now-defunct blog. His iconoclastic pseudonym, combined with his position as the primary contributor to Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, means that he is a lightening rod for criticism, hate, and, on Wikipedia, AfDs. Thus, the day most Americans' Christmas vacation began, the article received its third AfD, even though the article had changed little from its inception, only having more sources and an update as to the blogger's current prominent position. The AfD proceeded with far less attention than it would have gotten had it not been the holiday, and the timing seemed suspicious given the rightward slant of those who might defend the article (people who, I believe, would be less likely to be online during the holidays). Anyway, the lack of interest resulted in a "no consensus" result. I didn't have time to heap yet more sources onto the article — such as the Mary Mapes book — or to give it a proper defense until after I got home from vacation. In any event, while my having to add the source was a good thing, my having to repeatedly monitor this article and come to its defense has not been (and will not be). It has been, frankly, a waste of time. So I'd suggest the following:

1. Articles, even if they are moved, should be tagged as being a second/third/fourth/etc. deletion attempt. If they are improperly tagged, it should be assumed that the tagger did not realize the issue had already been discussed, and the article should be a "speedy keep."
2. There should be a limit to how many times in a certain period of time an article can be nominated for deletion. If I go in for jury duty one year, they can't call me again for a year. A similar policy makes sense for articles. It would be a very unusual circumstance that an article would be ineligible for deletion in the past but not the present. If the article deteriorated, it could always be reverted and modified from there.
3. While Wikipedia may right claim worldwide reach and 24/7/365 operation, a significant portion, if not a majority, of English-language Wikipedians will have some form of a Christmas holiday. Thus, it would be a good idea if AfDs and PRODs were not allowed in the last ten days of December except in the case of articles that were less than a month old.
4. While a blog is not a reliable source for news, notable blogs should be seen as evidence of notability of a phenomenon they cover. In addition, a newspaper's online editorial site should be seen as having the same level of reliability as its editorial pages, rather than being viewed as just another online source.
5. While I'd like to assume good faith, some Wikipedia users have openly declared "war on blogs," [1] while others have made it their duty to just get rid of as many blog-related articles as they can. While I would not ask for special protection for blog-related articles, it's important to recognize this bias.

I realize some may see these as fairly audacious suggestions considering that it's just one modest page that I've been concerned with, and, honestly, I don't expect any of them to be adopted in whole. But I do hope that there's some discussion about this that considers the flaws in the current policy, discussion that can result in something positive. Calbaer 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern but I have more faith in the community. This is a large enough group with enough international participation that we almost always get a critical mass of informed editors even during the holidays. Note please that in this case, even with all your concerns, the article was still kept. To your specific suggestions (I've changed them to numbers to make responding easier):

1. Repeat nominations should certainly be noted. The courteous way to do so is to provide a link to the previous discussions when making your nomination. That should be done regardless of whether the page was moved or not. Overriding the header is unnecessary. If the nominator does not provide the links to the previous nominations, I agree that we should assume that it was an oversight but the correct response is to provide the links to the previous discussions and to allow the current discussion to continue, not an automatic "speedy-keep".

2. The idea of a timelimit between nominations has been proposed many times before. We've rejected it each time. Any such hard limit would make it far to easy for bad-faith users to game our own rules against us. It would also put inappropriate constraints on the decision process in some circumstances. What we do instead is to shout down the premature renominations. If it really is premature, you can be sure that a significant number of participants will comment to that effect.

3. Disagree. See comments above about my faith in the scale of our community.

4 and 5. Blogs as evidence of notability and the reliability of online sources have been discussed many times and will need to continue being discussed as the social phenomenon that is blogging continues to evolve. That's probably a better discussion for WT:RS though. It's not really a question about the deletion process.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that the AfD seems to contradict many of your points:

1. If the previous AfD isn't noted near the top, people miss it or ignore it. And by the time it's noted, others have contributed to the discussion so that momentum is against those favoring "keep."

2. I do not believe that a significant number of participants will comment that renomination is premature. If I hadn't made comments to that effect and mentioned the new AfD to the fellow who closed the old AfD, no such comment would have been made. In the policy it is stated:

If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.

but there's no downside for someone who violates this policy. I would think that ignoring policy should result in your action being voided, not condoned.

3. I think the fact that there was a different result for the same nomination, with no article deterioration, indicates that this is a valid concern.

4 and 5. I agree that these aren't process questions, but they should be motivations for having a robust process.

My experience with blog-related articles is that (a) they are targets for deletion and are often successfully targeted in spite of being notable and (b) I can usually successfully defend such attempted deletions, but I don't want to defend blog articles as a full-time job. I would, for example, note the list of the top 50 political blogs (according to Alexa traffic) at [2] and see how many of these blogs have been either deleted or prodded for longer than five days. Of the top of my head, I can name Sadly, No! (#50); IMAO (#45); and Ace of Spades HQ (#14). Considering the increasing influence of blogs and the Internet in politics (see, e.g., Killian documents, the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Howard Dean), it is ridiculous that any of the top 50 U.S. political blogs can be dismissed as "non-notable." Calbaer 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A longer lag time for old, slow moving, many-authored, good-faith articles

I would like to create a new category, with a long lag time for old, slow moving, many-authored, good-faith articles. I feel that five days is a very short period in which such a page may be deleted. Several days lag time means there is a serious bias towards wikiholics. I dare suggest that this biases against older, mature, professional, expert, patient editors. I don’t think it is a good thing to ignore editors for whom wikipedia is not central to their lives, and who may very well go several weeks without checking their watchlists.

I suggest a lag time of 6 months. This will apply to articles that are at least two years old AND have at least ten authors AND the content is substantially in good faith to wikipedia’s principles.

I feel that for such a page, any request for deletion should clearly specify good reasons for deletion, that that there should be a presumption that the page will be improved to fix the specified problems. --SmokeyJoe 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts, anyone? SmokeyJoe 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary instruction creep.

The work of "older, mature, professional, expert, patient editors" is almost certainly good enough to survive on its own merits. Articles of the type you mention, if as you describe them, are unlikely to be nominated for deletion in the first place. If they are, many of the "wikiholics" who frequent AfD can be trusted to point out convincing reasons why they should be kept.

An article (or edit) that will not "stick" unless one particular person makes a habit of defending it is not a very sound article or edit. Good work will find vigorous support from people who had no hand in shaping the article.

It is courteous to attempt to let major editors of an article know if it is being nominated for deletion, but they do not own the article, have no special rights, and there is no compelling need for them to participate in the AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

December 2006 Deletion Statistics

I just did some quick analysis of December deletion statistics. I focused on deletion review, because that was what I was most interested in. Counting AFDs could be interesting also, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Deletion log entries are for all spaces (article, talk, User, Image, etc...)

Deletion Activity

• Rough deletion log entries (by approximate offsets, should be within 1K): 114,000 entries
• % of entries restorations: 2.02% (111 of sampled 5,500).
• Deletions: ~111,700
• Restores: ~2,300
• Net Deletions: ~109,400
• Net Deletions/Day: ~3,529

Deletion Review

• Deletion Reviews Opened: 210 (6.77 per day average, high of 15)
• Deletions Reviewed: 0.188% (ignoring the fact that some reviews are of keep decisions at AFD)
• Deletions overturned: 53 (excludes PRODs and overturns by deleting admin while DRV underway)
• Keeps overturned: 7
• Overturn rate: About 30%-33% for controversial items
• Deletions reviewed and overturned by DRV: ~0.05% (one-twentieth of one percent)

GRBerry 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk

What are the guidelines on deleting old user talk pages? There doesn't seem to be any info here. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are that you don't, unless m:Right to vanish is invoked, and even then, you have to show that there is no communication that people will care about on the pages you delete. -Amark moo! 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarified on the main page. >Radiant< 13:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted templates

The page recommends "Add {{civil1}} or {{civil2}}" for "Annoying or incivil user" under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. In the deletion discussion for civil 1 folks mentioned that templating users at these times is counterproductive. I'm going to go ahead take out that text for now (obviously it's not helpful to refer to deleted templates), but I'd suggest putting in wording like "Respectfully and gently ask the user to follow the civility policy" or some such. Any thoughts? delldot | talk 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What happens when the nominator withdraws their nomination for deletion?

Am curious as to how this is meant to apply to the AfD, does it keep on running or does it close early with a Keep? Any links points to appropriate pages would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could be answering my own question here.... WP:SK means that only if nobody else has voted delete can the nominator withdraw causing the closure of the debate, however if anybody at all has voted delete it remains open? Mathmo ^Talk

Correct. -Amark moo! 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A minor point we should probably clarify is that if the people voting to delete also change their vote after the nominator withdraws the nomination, then it should also go to speedy keep. Dhaluza 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Unclear

This article is unclear in a most fundamental way; it does say that an admin is needed to delete a page, but it does Not mention if non-admins can nominate articles for deletion. I would edit the page to answer this, but I don't know the answer. Help? Wolphii 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, non-admins can nominate articles for deletion. Follow the steps outlined at WP:AFD. Let me know on my talk page if you need any help. delldot | talk 07:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggest changing 5 days to 8 days

If a user can only use Wikipedia once a week, say a random weekend day, they will miss a Monday AfD listing. 8 days would be fairer. Notatest 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article actually shouldn't be deleted, more than one person will argue that, so it really doesn't matter all that much. -Amarkov moo! 15:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since any time limit is arbitrary, to change it from one admittedly arbitrary value to another equally arbitrary value, you need a better reason than "it would be fairer". >Radiant< 15:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But Notatest has given a rationale for the proposed change to a 8 days consensus building period. What is your rationale for retaining 5 days? Parasite 09:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the change to 8 days. The rational is simple, this would allow people who only edit once a week to participate. It would also eliminate any incentive to try to game the system by listing articles for AfD on days of the week that are likely to get less attention. Also, many AfD's are held over for a total of 10 days anyway, because of a lack of consensus, so this would eliminate the need for the holdover, and allow a no-consensus to stand after a single 8-day period. Dhaluza 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Many" AFDs? Do you have statistics to back up that claim? It looks like a small minority to me. >Radiant< 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that some people only edit at weekends, so a time period that guarantees that a weekend is covered would be better--Amaccormack 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Likely? Do you have statistics to back up that claim? >Radiant< 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Many, as in a non-trivial number.Dhaluza 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I realize this is getting repetitive, but "non-trivial"? Do you have statistics to back up that claim? The point that I'm making here is that we do not create or amend policy based on hypothesis or conjecture. If you propose a change, the burden is on you to demonstrate this change actually accomplishes something, such as fixing a problem that is real rather than imaginary. >Radiant< 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you provide access to the Wikipedia access logs and database, I can write a script or query for you that will show the distribution of people who use Wikipedia mainly at weekends. How am I supposed to provide evidence otherwise? To demand evidence but not provide the opportunity to generate the evidence is silly. --Amaccormack 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability relates to the subject, not the current state of the article.

I recently made an edit to application of the notability criteria, and it was reverted citing the main misconception that was the reason for the change. Many editors are under the mistaken impression that AfD is a judgment on the current state of an article, and failure of an author to meet notability criteria in the current text is grounds for deletion. This is a perversion of the whole process. We are supposed to support each other, and an editor who creates an article that falls short should be helped by other editors if possible. So if the subject is notable, the article should be improved to establish notability, not deleted by other editors sitting in judgment. Dhaluza 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The problem is, "cannot meet" implies that if the subject might become notable later, it should be kept, which is not the case. It should be clarified to note that cleanup to establish notability should be done if possible, but that isn't a good way to do it. -Amarkov moo! 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, "will not meet" would imply future notability, which as you correctly point out would not qualify. I'm open to other formulations, as long as they address the main problem which is the snap judgment tendency. Dhaluza 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that notability relates to the audience or, given some of the frankly bizarre stuff I've seen written here, to the perceptions that third parties ("secondary sources") want to create. It's clear that articles with a "too-specialized" audience can be labeled as non-notable ... by people outside of that audience, who may accordingly be wholly unqualified to judge notability! Ditto things in for example early stages of technical development, where secondary sources may not yet exist. In short, Notability seems to be extremely subjective (despite assertions otherwise) and contrary to Encyclopaedic goals. --69.226.208.120 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Priorities

I think there is an important point here that needs to be stated explicitly, because it does not come through loud and clear now:

The correct way to deal with articles of questionable encyclopedic value is:

1. Try to improve the article so it can stand on its own
2. If it cannot stand on it's own, merge relevant content to a related article that can
3. Delete remaining non-relevant content

Is there any problem with adding this? Dhaluza 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The page already says that several different times. If you can find a way to say it more clearly, be bold. Rossami (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Draft

...is a draft for rewriting this policy to make it less long and complex, and incorporate the undeletion policy as well. It should not be a substantial change, just a clearer version. Please comment on its talk page, and/or copyedit. >Radiant< 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Flawed webcomics deletion policy tested

I have long been complaining that webcomics articles are deleted unfairly. In defence of this view I offer the following:

“ February 15, 2007

Webcartoonist punks Wikipedia Kristofer Straub reports on the deletion of his webcomic Starslip Crisis:

Delete Wikipedia: A Webcomics Case Study:

The Webcomics Purge of ‘07 continues with the deletion of Starslip Crisis‘ article. An article for deletion was submitted to Wikipedia, to delete Starslip Crisis, and the measure carried.

The result was delete and redirect to Blank Label Comics. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I started the vote to delete Starslip Crisis.

I started the vote to delete Starslip Crisis using a freshly-registered user with no other edits under his belt.

I also used faulty logic to initiate the discussion: I said www.starslip.com has no Alexa data, and isn’t notable as a result. (www.starslip.com is just a redirect: the comic’s URL is www.starslipcrisis.com and has an Alexa rank.)

Then I registered ten more fake users to stuff the original delete vote. This is called “sock puppetry” in Wikipedia terminology, and is frowned upon. The names of the fake users I used in the AfD are: Salby, Incredulous, Banalzebub, Hammerabbi, LKeith30, Repromancer, Expiwikist, Floxman, YothSog, and 66.27.212.63.

It’s so frowned upon that when someone else — a person I don’t know calling himself WizardBrad — tried to use a sock puppet to get his Keep vote to count twice, he was found to be cheating and his vote was struck from the record! Bless your heart, WizardBrad.

Here I was terrified that the Wikipedia editors-that-be would uncover my ruse to falsely delete a webcomic from their pages, and not only did they not find me out, they discounted someone cheating in Starslip’s favor!! How did they catch him and not me? Why did they bother to check up on his IP and not the IP address I used for the ten fake voters?

Oh, I will admit, I was sly. My fake voters engaged in conversation with one another, even one convincing another that the article should be deleted, not just merged under something else. Wikipedia cautions its editors that sock puppets can appear, and that the “straw man sock puppets” are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur.

What I tried to do was take the popular point of view among Wikipedia’s editors — “delete webcomics” — and then prove that it would be accepted even under fallacious/suspicious circumstances. And it looks like I was successful.

Starslip Crisis is gone from Wikipedia for made-up reasons championed by my team of ten grudge-carrying fakes.

As it turns out, it’s not hard to get something deleted from Wikipedia, especially if it’s on some ice-blasted, barren frontier land on the internet like webcomics, where no one really knows what’s important and what isn’t, and no one really cares to make sure.

Yes, it does look to me like the process is broken, why do you ask?

”

Posted on Reinder Dijkhuis's blog at http://rocr.xepher.net/weblog/archives/001935.html

Lee M 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the full deletion debate, I note that many other established editors joined the conversation and offered other reasons for deletion. Even with the assertions offered above, closing this debate would have been a judgment call. Reviewing the deleted content, I would probably have argued to delete this page too. As a project, I believe we are too biased in our coverage of recent and internet-based phenomena. Any process is fallible, especially if someone deliberately abused our assumptions of good faith (which, by the way, is itself a direct violation of policy and a banning offense). But it actually looks to me like the process worked in this case. You can always appeal the decision to deletion review if you disagree. Rossami (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this AFD debate doesn't get the "user has less than ten edits" marks that you get in other AFDs. >Radiant< 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Technicality again

Hi.

Why can't articles be purged completely and irrevocably from Wikipedia servers? What about copyvios? Or libel? Those should be purged completely and irrevocably. 74.38.32.195 08:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Parasite 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

'Cause they are law violations? And it would free server space. Since they're law violations, there is nothing wrong with removing them (especially the copyvios -- there's no "GNU License" excuse there!) 74.38.32.195 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• They can be. It's called oversight. >Radiant< 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I mean purge. What do you mean, anyway, by "oversight"? 74.38.32.195 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Oversight. >Radiant< 10:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

New idea, from the notability discussion

The following is copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview#Overspecialization:

• The only problem with establishing notability at AfD is that it only gives 5 days to establish notability for articles on the brink. If the primary author (or other people who would want to rescue the article) doesn't edit every day, they may have even less time. And, by the time they do fix it (find sources, assert notability more, etc.) the consensus may have already been determined based on the state of the article immediately after the nomination. Many articles on AfD have 1-3 comments within 1 hour of the nom. And then there's the name Articles for Deletion. Other XfD's have changed it to discussion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, if you remove notability as a guideline you would just have to use those pesky policies when discussing an AFD, requiring things like "verifiable" and "NOR" as required in WP:ATT. Not citing sources is definitely something you can get someone one that is objective. DanielZimmerman 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is objective as defined in the WP:N page itself. What is not objective is "I like it", "I don't like it", or other made-up, ad hoc criteria. 74.38.32.195 07:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Daniel gets my point. My point is that notability isn't determined by referring to a page like this one, it's determined by debating a topic. The only way to demonstrate notability is by providing sources, so just provide sources. Unsourced articles are going to have to get cleaned up at some point. If an article gets tagged at afd and the regular editors aren't about, the point is redundant, isn't it. Because it doesn't matter which five days it gets nominated in. Always build an article in accordance with policy, and then if you go missing for five days there's no problem, you've made your case already. In the article. And if the article is nominated because of lack of sources and wasn't tagged before hand, then ask for a delay, suggest the nomination may be bad faith since no tagging has been added per our deletion policies. The policies are out there and tell us what to do. They tell us to add sources, they tell us to tag unsourced material and then remove it if it doesn't get sourced, and then if there's still an issue take it to afd. Do your best work on an article, follow the policies, discuss civilly and in good faith, make your best arguments citing policies, and be prepared to lose. Most people will keep a good article which is written in an encyclopedic manner and cites sources nine times out of ten. The other time the article will either be merged or deleted. If your article is badly written, cites no sources and is unencyclopedic, then it doesn't matter when the nomination comes, you're on notice it needs to be improved because that's what policy requires. Hiding Talk 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, but often many articles that turn out to be very good start out as crap. Just look at the earliest versions of some pages. this is the tenth version of Demand Note, now a FA. Perhaps we should have some other kind of comment on AfD besides "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", and other permutations of those. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, maybe "Delete on hold". This would be used for borderline deletion cases (apparantly notable but not sourced, notable but needs a complete rewrite, etc.). If consensus was "delete on hold", the page would be taggged with a template, similar to those put on images with no copyright tags. The article would go into a "delete on hold" category and then, if the article is not fixed after a period of time (maybe 7-10 days, it may depend on how backlogged the category gets) it would be deleted. (I am aware that there are much better places to discuss this, but I figured since we were on the topic already I would get some comment here first.) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think we already have something to handle a situation like that. It is called a stub. Placing the stub template on an article says that it is a work in progress. Nobody expects an article that is placed on wikipedia to be a finished project from the get go. Articles are in a constant state of flux and can increase and decrease in size depending on the authors at the time. As time goes on, articles will get better. Now, if an article doesn't have enough citations, well, there is a template for that as well. And if a certain length of time passes where the authors of that article do not update the sources then perhaps it could then be deleted for not being verifiable. As I have said for a while, the policies that exist give wikipedia enough muscle to remove the articles that dont belong here and keep the ones that do. DanielZimmerman 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but the existing templates have little force. They are more like reccomendations (If this article is not cleaned up it may go to AfD). What I suggested is more like a ultimatum to come after AfD(If this article is not cleaned, it will be deleted in X days). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would support that under the condition that contributers were automatically notified of the deadline. Could a bot be designed to do that? --Kevin Murray 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problem with being a little more stern with the AFD. However, I think we should be giving in the amount of time we give people to fix their articles. Some people who write quality articles are not going to check wikipedia once a week. But we are kinda getting off topic here. We should get back to notability... not afd. DanielZimmerman 19:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what I am proposing is a new comment/close for AfD's, something like "Delete on Hold" (I'm not attached to the name). This would be used for borderline deletion cases (similar to "weak delete/keep") and would give extra time to repair the article (cite, cleanup, etc) before it is deleted. This would have a corresponding template to be put on the article, similar to those put on untagged images. The article would be put into a category ("Deletions on hold" or something like that) and the article would have a set number of days (7, 10, 14, whatever sounds reasonable) before it is deleted if it is not repaired. If the article is repaired, there would have to be some process for determining this. Letting any editor remove the tag won't work, maybe another AfD?

The process would go something like this:

1. Someone finds an article and nominates it for AfD as usual.
2. Consensus is determined as usual.
3. It is determined that the article may be notable but the article is not sourced.
4. The consensus is "delete on hold"
5. The article is tagged and given 7 days to be repaired
6. Someone comes along, finds sources and starts a new AfD (maybe)
7. Consensus is determined again to see whether the article meets standards.
8. If it does, the article is kept, if not, "delete on hold" resumes with the number of days left until deletion set at what it was when the new discussion was started.

I think this could save some borderline deletion cases and could help get more articles to meet quality standards. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First, see WP:Speedy_deletion_criterion_for_unsourced_articles where a recent similar proposal--after first defining speedy as 10 days for this process, failed to get consensus.

Then, see WP:PRODUS for a more recent attempt to find something for the purpose that will be generally acceptable. It also failed to obtain consensus. Among the issues was the effect on the enormous number of unsourced older articles.

The simplest way to accomplish what you are suggesting under present procedure is to have the AfD continued for another 5 days, which is sometimes done either to obtain consensus or to get some interest.DGG 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• One problem with this is that it roughly doubles the time required for an already-backlogged process. You can't effectively do anything about the existence of "borderline" cases. You can move the borderline to some extent in either direction (which is what this would accomplish) but it would still exist. The fact that borderlines can be controversial can de facto not be solved by moving the borderline around. >Radiant< 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, this isn't necessarily just for articles missing sources, I just used that as an example. I also have seen articles on AfD that may be worthy of keeping but are in such horrible shape that no one can tell what they are really about. This would give extra time to rewrite/repair articles. I don't think extending the AfD discussion would help much, as most comments are added within the first 72 hours. This wouldn't have any effect on all the old unsourced articles, unless someone decides to nominate them all for deletion. This wouldn't require any articles to be nominated, it just adds another choice besides "Keep", "Delete", or "Abstain". This is similar to many "weak delete" comments that add "if"'s to the comment, such as Weak Delete: If the article isn't cleaned up. And how would this not help borderline cases? I would estimate that around 50% of borderline ("Weak Delete/Keep") cases are deleted and the rest are kept. This probably wouldn't change that number significantly, but the ones that are kept would be kept only after improvements are made. Would this double the amount of time an article spends on AfD? Yes, but only if you use another AfD to determine whether any changes made are enough to warrant keeping. I suggested that because of a lack of other ideas at the time. If anyone has other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another idea, also from the notability discussion

I am posting a proposal derived in part from the notability discussion and in part from my recent experience at AfD patrolling. Let me say this: AfD patrol takes a long time (in fact, so long that I've had little or no opportunity for several weeks to contribute to articles with which I am or would like to be actively involved). So, please find below my proposed addition to WP deletion policy: I'm going to be somewhat long-winded, but the addition can be much shorter. Oh, and please note, this proposal is not intended to replace the idea expressed above by User:Mr.Z-man, nor is it intended as a parallel to it--it's a separate proposal.

Given that:

1. Many Wikipedia articles do not sufficiently establish notability by providing multiple independent, reliable, non-trivial sources that discuss the topic;
2. Many new editors are not familiar with Wikipedia policies and may be discouraged from further editing if an article that they created in good faith is nominated for deletion shortly after its creation; and
3. A great deal of collective time and effort goes into deletion discussions for articles which are ultimately not deleted,

I propose that:

Any editor who wishes to nominate an article for deletion at WP:AFD be required to give advance notice of this intention to the article's creator and the primary contributor(s), if they are not the same.

In this advance notice, the editor can express the particular concerns s/he has about the article and request that the major problems be fixed, so that the article becomes viable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If, after the expiration of a designated period of time, the article is not improved to the editor's satisfaction, s/he may propose it for deletion via WP:AFD. If all notified authors refuse (in writing) to change the article prior to the expiration of that time, the editor may list the article at WP:AFD without further delay. A refusal or failure to act by the notified authors should not reflect negatively on the merits of the article at AfD. In order to serve its purpose, the "advance notice" should last no less than 48 hours, to give the authors time to address the issues raised.

Allow me to enumerate the advantages of this proposal:

Advantages

1. It results in the improvement of numerous articles, especially those articles created in good faith by new users who are not familiar with WP policies and guidelines.
2. It reduces the proportion of articles arriving at AfD that are "keep, cleanup" cases, thus freeing up the time of editors to work on other articles.
3. It reduces the burden on administrators that have to read AfD discussions and close them (by extension, I believe it would reduce the number of articles that go to WP:DRV)
4. New/inexperienced users are less likely to be discouraged by seeing "AFD" templates on pages they have authored.

Qualifications

1. This proposal does not apply to cases of uncontroversial deletion (proposed or speedy deletion).
2. This proposal is not intended to save articles from deletion. Rather, its purpose is to create a more friendly environment for new users and to provide a more efficient mechanism of article improvement besides "nominated for deletion, discussed, improved, kept".
3. This proposal is not intended as an excuse for the retention of articles which fail to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rather, it gives time to those most closely involved in an article to bring the article into compliance with said policies and guidelines.

Proposed implementation A number of methods, used separately or in conjunction may be used to implement this proposal upon its acceptance (assuming, of course, that it is accepted):

1. Adding this to the instructions for nominating articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and any other relevant pages.
2. Adding a notice to the top of the WP:AFD page informing editors of this new policy.
3. Revising Template:AfD footer by adding anorther parameter to it equal to the talk page of the original author of the article. This can be used as an easy way of checking that the authors of an article have been notified and will also let editors know of the change in policy.

Discussion

I would be happy to hear comments and criticisms of this proposal, as well as any suggestions for changing it. -- Black Falcon 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed variations of the "mandatory notification" proposal many times before. Each time, it's been acclaimed as the polite thing to do for good-faith contributors but a really bad thing to require across the board. Please see the archives for all the detailed reasons and discussions. Rossami (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rossami, I looked through the archives and I think this proposal is different from the other two that were suggested.

1. First, the previous proposals also applied to proposed deletions (and if I understood right, one of them even possibly applied to speedy deletions). This proposal applies only to AFD (it does not apply in cases of "prod, de-prod, AFD").
2. Second, this will not require additional work on the part of editors nominating articles for deletion (they have to provide a rationale and reasons for deletion in their AfD anyway).
3. Third, essentially two arguments were raised against the previous proposal (which I think was flawed to begin with and would have personally opposed had I known about it), but both don't seem to apply here:

1. The main criticism of the previous proposal by User:IZAK was that notification of the author goes against WP:OWN. However, the reason for this proposal is not to inform the authors of articles because they "deserve" to be informed. No! The fact is, however, that those people who authored or are the most significant contributors to an article are most likely to respond to a call to improve it to keep it from being deleted. The purpose of this proposal is not to address concerns that "article creators deserve to be notified", but rather to improve articles and make the AfD process more efficient. In other words, it's not motivated by sensitivity concerns, but rather by practicality.
2. A lot of the comments against the proposal were that articles created by a user automatically go to their "watchlist". Yes, but again, ownership or defending the article is not the issue here. The issue is politely asking those who are most involved in an article this: I think this article, to which you are a major contributor, has problems. Fix them or the article may be deleted!

The previous proposal was made out of an assumption that article contributors deserve to know if their contributions are going to be deleted. I strongly disagree with that. The proposal I'm suggesting is essentially a polite version of this:

Improve the article to meet WP standards or your contributions may be deleted (not sometime in the distant future as per WP guidelines, but within the span of a few days)! The truth is, I don't particularly care who improves the article, but since you seem to have the most interest in this topic (based on the article's edit history) and thus the most desire to see it kept, I'm turning to you.

The above is actually quite rudely worded, but it captures the essence of my proposal. Again, I don't think an article's authors should have any more say as to the fate of that article than anyone else. But the fact is, they are the ones most likely to wish to have it kept and thus to be willing to improve it to that end. I ask you to reconsider your position due to the fundamental differences between the proposals. -- Black Falcon 05:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• The main problem here is that your "givens" are assumptions rather than facts. The actual problem is that many novice editors use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes, such as self-promotion, writing about stuff they made up, and telling the world about their pet goldfish. A major part of deletions, whether by CSD, AFD or PROD, are specifically to counter that. >Radiant< 14:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The statements are of a sufficiently general nature that they are facts. Many WP articles don't do enough to establish notability (otherwise we wouldn't have any CSD.A7 cases or any AFD cases based on WP:N). New editors usually are not familiar with all or most of WP's guidelines and policies. Sure, they use it for non-encyclopedic purposes, but it may just be that they don't know. This proposal does not apply to cases of self-promotion, WP:NFT, or pet goldfishes, as such articles are almost never sent to AfD. They are speedied or prodded. I added the givens mostly to spell out why I came to this idea, but if they are deemed unnecessary or questionable, we can simply discard them. Their purpose is only stylistic. -- Black Falcon 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Radiant. In my edit summary I mistakenly noted reply to "Rossami". Black Falcon 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think this is a decent idea and may actually complement mine. It would definitly seem less bitey than the current system. The problems would be in determining the advance notice delay. I agree that less than 48h is too little, but I would think that more that 5 days would be too much (editors may forget to nominate articles). This would also have one more unintended benefit. It would allow for the immeadiate removal of bad faith noms, as the nominators would not be leaving warnings in advance. Perhaps we could have a page of "Articles ready for deletion" that would list articles whose authors/contributors have been warned and give the date they are eligible for AfD. If the article is fixed, it is removed from the list, if not, it is put on AfD. We may even be able to reconfigure the bot that warns users that their article is on AfD to send messages pertaining to this idea. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. I was actually thinking of at least 48 but no more than 72 hours, but that's really a technicality that can be worked out. By my rought count, one-third of articles listed at AfD are kept (including "no consensus" keeps). In many cases, the concerns of the nominator are addressed by improving the article (providing additional sources, rewriting the text). In some cases, the nominator even withdraws his/her nomination after the issues have been addressed. I believe this proposed mechanism would reduce the number of cases that unnecessarily go to AFD and would make the AFD process overall more efficient. -- Black Falcon 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Am I correct that what this really amounts to is not just increasing the time for AfD or Prod, but providing a 2 or 3 day notice period for articles to be fixed before the debate begins. If so, I think it would help, because the first few comments tend to decide the issue except when there is really wide interest. --I assume you dont intend to require advance notice for speedy. I continue to think speedy is the problem, and can only be handled by some sort of community expression against people who try A7 of things they must know will be contested in good faith. DGG 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, your understanding is correct. I do not propose that the length of AFD discussions or prod tags be extended. In fact, my proposal does not even apply to proposed deletion (or to speedy deletion) at all, but only to AFD. If deletion is thought to be uncontroversial (as with speedy or prod), there is no need to notify anyone to try to "fix" an article. However, if deletion may be controversial because the article has merits, but desperately needs improvement, then notifying the article's primary contributor can be a way of fixing an article so that it isn't dragged to AFD where it will consume the community's time and attention. As regards your latter point, I agree. Speedy deletion should only be used in cases where deletion is entirely uncontroversial to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of the main WP policies and guidelines. -- Black Falcon 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In general the idea is good. However IMO it is nnecessry. We already have tags {{unreferenced}}, {{not verified}}, {{prod}}, etc. If the contributors don't bother to review their contributions from time to time and address the concern, the article is a fair game to AFD. The existing way may be improved as follows:

1. There already are bots that patrol newpages. If a new page is unreferenced for, say 1 day, let bot automatically tags it and if there was a single author, notifies him about a threat of deletion.
2. For the above prposes, onme may introduce more "threatening" templates, so that the author respond more willingly. Current one sound neutral: "lacks sources..." so what?)
3. If a "threatening" tag is placed manually, a bot may notify authors (if there are 1-2 of them, but not more; too many 'bot noise in talk pages is not good)
4. If {{prod}} was deleted without discussing the concern of PROD, it may be reinserted (may be in some cases only; one may elaborate).

I agree that in many cases AfD is a desperate attempt to force the authors to fix it. But wikipedia in over 1.5 mln articles now. Do we really have to strive to keep every scrap of it as it was in early days with the main purpose being growth? If a topic is notable, someone will recreate it, possibly in better way. Mukadderat 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Cross-namespace

This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.

Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Draft

Based on complaints that the deletion policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted, several people have revised the deletion policy page, to clarify it, remove redundancy, and incorporate material from a few related policies, in particular WP:PROD, WP:UNDEL and WP:CBLANK. This is not a change in policy, just a reworking of the relevant pages. The draft can be found at the link above; unless there are big objections, the intent is to move this over the present deletion policy as a new version; the second step would be to verify that it contains all relevant material from the related policies mentioned above, and complete the merge with a redirect. Please comment on the draft's talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Privacy

What is the rationale behind Deletion For Privacy? Did this materialize because of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy?.100110100 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's not about article deletion, it's about hiding deletion debates in the (rare) case that the subject of an article complains about them. This is because such debates can be derogatory. >Radiant< 13:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy: Template prod

From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgies^t_c 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised version

Over a month ago a rewrite of this page was started at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Draft, with the aim to clean up the page, remove redundancies, and clarify. This is not a change in actual policy, just in the wording. This has been discussed on the draft's talk page, as well as WP:LAP, WP:AN and the village pump, and is part of a general aim to keep our policies up to date and simple. If you see any problems, unclarities, or inadvertent changes, please edit the page and fix them. >Radiant< 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to rather heavily lean toward explaining AfD. (Just look for the use of the word "articles".)

Also, as I mentioned on the talk page of the draft, CfD is quite different than the other XfD "debates". It's not merely a "deletion debate", but a discussion that can include merges, renames/moves, etc. These are things that can be simply done by being bold to the other targets of XfD debates, but can only be done by admins to categories, since they must be done manually, and involve deletion once the rename/move/merge is performed. So for all these reasons, I think that CfD should have a separate page, with a link to and from this page. Much on this page simply doesn't apply to categories, and just will lead to confusion than be helpful. - jc37 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed 'article' to 'page' in most instances. Does that help? Yes, CFD follows different rules, and the intent is not to merge the CFD policy page here. Perhaps the distinction needs to be made clearer on this page? >Radiant< 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (on all points). However, there are some rules on the page that seem to only apply to articles, and AfD (probably rightly). Perhaps each type of page should have a short overview paragraph clarifying anything that may be of interest or distinct in relation to the general XfD rules/policy. As for categories, WP:OCAT seems to be the only confusing link. I think we may need to build an actual CfD page, pulling from all the other XfD pages (rules for CfD seems to be scattered to the winds). And the CfD link at "Where to find them" removed, once that page is built.

As an aside, in attempting to find the various rules for CfD, I begin to see why category creation may be confusing for newbies. It's taken me more than a bit of searching to find some of the more esoteric rules, and several pages are contradictory, based on whatever the "current" consensus was when the info related to categories was last edited on each page. - jc37 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I am in the midst of making some changes to the page. I'm essentially copy-pasting some sentences and ideas from the previous version that were absent in this version (e.g., about blocked users), although I'm doing my best not to lengthen the page much. I think the re-inclusion of these parts would make WP:DEL more accessible to new users as the new version seems (at least to me) to be oriented more toward experienced users (i.e., it does not mention policies that seem commonsense to those generally familiar with Wikipedia--e.g., blocked users can't participate in XfD). Please let me know if you disagree with the changes I have made and will make, so that we can stop and discuss them. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have finished. The current version does not exclude anything significant from the previous version. There is just one more change I will make to remove content that was introduced in this version, but was not present in the former version (COI as a reason for deletion). This last change may be a little more controversial, but it is in keeping with restricting this change in format to exclude any changes in policy. -- Black Falcon 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy != obvious absence of encyclopedic content

I've removed the statement that the speedy criteria boil down to an obvious absence of encyclopedic content. The speedy criteria, as partially remarked on WP:SPEEDY, have been drawn narrowly as a result of various historical compromises regarding which material is safe to delete on sight and which material should be discussed before deletion. They're not intended to be criteria of what is encyclopedic and what isn't. For example, (i) a page giving 1,000,000,000 digits of π, (ii) an essay explaining why chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla and everyone should prefer it to vanilla, and (iii) a list of all persons in Adelaide would all be obviously unencyclopedic, but none of these things are speediable. Spacepotato 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, even indisputable absence of encyclopedic content isn't speediable. And while in some sense, they are criteria of what is encyclopedic and what isn't, they scrape the very bottom of the barrel; like you said, there are many things which are obviously unencyclopedic, but not speediable. -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually several of those would be G4 :) at any rate, you're right, the point of this page is not to define the speedy criteria, we can simply link there. >Radiant< 08:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion because of WP:A failure

The previous policy lists two cases when article deletion may be necessary because of WP:A failure:

1. If an article is original research (and is therefore unattributable.)
2. If, for an unsourced article, an editor has looked for sources and asked other editors for sources, and these actions have both failed to produce sources for the article.

To match the former policy, it seems to be clearer and more correct to reproduce these two cases. Spacepotato 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit note

I've re-added two emphasis notes (that >1000 pages deleted per day, and that merging doesn't require discussion). These are common novice mistakes. The paragraph about who can participate in AFD discussions belongs in the AFD section, not the header. Note that contesting a speedy doesn't mean it can't get deleted anyway, and note that you don't need to know the CSDs by heart in order to PROD. It's certainly valid to PROD (or AFD) an article that would technically be a speedy. >Radiant< 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) I agree with some mention of how many pages are deleted, but thought the 1000 figure covered only articles. Isn't the actual figure for all delete pages closer to 5000 per day? (2) I am also OK with the "merging doesn't require discussion" notice. (3) Yep, the paragraph about blocked users should go as it's redundant anyway (I added it, but it really is unnecessary given the format of this version). (4) Contesting a speedy doesn't mean it can't get deleted, but only if it is retagged or an admin happens across it. If it is retagged (and good-faith contestations of speedy deletions really shouldn't be retagged), we simply go back to step one. I felt it was confusing so I've removed/rewritten it. Please re-add if it can be done so while avoiding this confusion. (5) True, prod can be used even for speedy-able cases; there was no need for that sentence. -- Black Falcon 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, struck the CSK paragraph for now as it was poorly worded (will look into that) and removed the "except blocked users" bit because that's covered in WP:BLOCK. Also, several of the "main article" links aren't useful as this page is intended to cover it entirely. And finally, the 'courtesy blanking' section shouldn't talk about sockpuppets or removing personal attacks (which is controversial anyway). >Radiant< 10:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think there should be some mention of speedy keep, but have no problem with an alternate wording. The "blocked users" bit can be removed as a minor detail already covered elsewhere. In any case, a blocked user who tries to participate in a deletion discussion will quickly discover that s/he can't. I also have no problem with focusing the 'courtesy blanking' section on the narrow(er) and less controversial definition. Regarding your third point, I don't think this page should cover WP:UNDEL ("courtesy blanking" is different as it doesn't have much unique content). WP:UNDEL provides miuch information that, if merged here, would bloat this page. -- Black Falcon 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

repeated Deletion Discussions

There's been a good deal of complaint recently at AfD about the arapid renomination of pages on AfD, until a successful vote can be (perhaps by change) obtained. I feel, and others there also feel, that this is an abuse of process. Perhaps now is the time to say specify something about this, and the wording I suggest is that material keep as a result of a AfD cannot be re-proposed for deletion by any process except deletion review for three months. (time adjustable--personally, i would choose 6 months, but this may be too much of a step. I'd also accept "at least one month" . I'm not sure to say about items closed as "no consensus".DGG 09:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:PEREN issue. In general the community has resisted such strictly defined limits on grounds of instruction creep. I would suggest asking at WT:AFD, it has had a few related threads in the recent past. >Radiant< 10:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And one already addressed long since in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. Uncle G 14:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion

I have created article Internet troll squads, and it was marked for deletion. Could you take a look and tell your opinion? I think, this case might be interesting for defining deletion policies in general. Biophys 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Nothing special about this one. >Radiant< 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm lookinf for a certain essay on deletion...

somewhere along the lines of "what arguments not to use in a deletion discussion". Anyone know what I'm talking about? Blueaster 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[3] Here you go. Risker 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)