Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Deletion reasons

Not entirely sure what it stands for, but I saw "nn-website" in the deletion reason for an article. What does "nn" stand for? I cannot seem to find any documentation on it anywhere. Thanks, I am a bit confused... --Cyclone103 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"nn" is usually used as an abbreviation for non-notable. Information on notability standards may be found at Wikipedia:Notability. There is a speedy deletion criterion (A7) for "... web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! --Cyclone103 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to "Alternatives to deletion" section

I would like to add another 3rd level heading titled "Redirection" with the following text:

In some cases, an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required.

Lots of AfDs already result in redirects, and it's already listed as an option at WP:BEFORE. I think adding this section would reduce unneccessary nominations. Does anyone have any objections/comments? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Perhaps something about WP:BOLD and what to do if the redirect gets reverted would be helpful, but I support the idea and find the text acceptable as written. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I've added it to the policy. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as a controversial suggestion, but I'll mention it and not make the edit to the project page - it strikes me that the "Alternatives to deletion" section could have a sublede briefly stating and echoing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, something to the effect of "there are processes for which the Articles for Deletion process is not a substitute:" along with a policy shortcut of WP:AFDNOT which is somewhat more intelligible than just WP:ATD, giving editors the option of choosing the shortest shortcut or the most explanatory one. Шизомби (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Deletion needs to be decided by someone who has knowledge within the field. Academics are required to decide if an academic topic notable. Pokemon expert for Pokemon articles. What one person considers not significant another group may consider important.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we make sure nobody is lying? --Explodicle (T/C) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a good question. I think certain people who are in positions of greater authority on Wikipedia should be willing to expose themselves to greater scrutiny. I edit over at Medpedia even though it is not nearly as fun :-) We all send in our CVs. A number of us at WP:MED already give real information about ourselves.

Transparency should not be forced but should be encouraged. And a method of verification should be in place for those who wish to be verified. It would help in people taking us more seriously if a portion of editors said who they were.

I not sure if review by "experts" is required for most of Wikipedia but for the academic part it should be. I have seen some comments by academics that they are being judged by those with potentially little expertise in the field.

As much of the easy stuff on Wikipedia has been dealt we need to work harder to attract people who will do proper research in the generation of content.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So kinda like Citizendium, but with second-class pseudonymous editors? --Explodicle (T/C) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not call any editor second class ( just as non admins are not second class ). It should be okay to let your identity be known not a requirement. I do not think many serious editors would be ashamed of who they are btw.

This would be one less thing that the media and academia could than hound Wikipedia regarding.

This would allow possibly better relations with potential academic editors.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So what happens when we end up with a subject where the only experts willing to do this are biased against some aspect of the topic? Mr.Z-man 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is how you can judge the notability of a topic without having at least some background in the area. I have posted a comment in an attempt to address some of the concerns brought up here Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-30/In_the_news.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And the answer is (or should be) that notability be grounded in coverage by reliable, independent sources. We have an extended family of subject notability guidelines (SNGs) for actors, scientists, books, movies, etc. But they all should (they don't in reality) point to whether or not sourcing exists. Obviously some competence is required to judge sources. Alternate names, spellings, likely antecendents, good offline sources, are all accessible only with some expertise. Often that expertise is subject specific. But frankly a lot of it is interdisciplinary and falls under the skillset we would like an encyclopedist do be familiar with. Another, broader answer is that our set of editors and rules for self identification have a great deal to do with who we are as a separate entity. We aren't a closed resource. We don't require a CV to edit (or do anything else). Obviously those characteristics aren't unambiguously good, but they are who we are. We can't fundamentally change them without giving up on that. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) No one is recommended we get rid of what we have just that we should add to it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• You read the articles about how wikipedia has too many rules and is opaque to new contributors and concluded that we need more? Protonk (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no were stated that one should raise the bar for contributing to Wikipedia. What I have suggested would be a way for old Wikipedian to welcome new Wikipedian by encouraging a voluntary increase in openness. There is nothing wrong with putting a face to who we are.

The other issue I brought up was a concern that some academics feel harshly handled by the deletion process. This concern regardless of what you think about my previous comments should be discussed and solutions proposed in an attempt to address it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that academic topics of importance are often discussed in peer-reviewed journals that would qualify an article under our existing guidelines. Do you think this might change our treatment of fringe theories? --Explodicle (T/C) 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the above is applied academics should not have any concerns. Not sure what you are getting at in the second sentence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, we should not be using our personal knowledge to make decisions like this, rather we should be using our documented best practices and the content of the article and its sources. For the same reason we avoid original research we should be making decisions based on knowledge we can all understand. The only thing one should need to be an expert in is the policies and guidelines of Wikipedias and the expectations of the community. ^Chillum 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Non consensual BLPs: what to do now

More than 1 month has passed since the original Lar (talk · contribs) proposal (see above).

The community consensus seems to be against (a very rough head count is 31 support ; 54 oppose, FWIW), but it seems there is enough community split and concerns to warrant a compromise between the camps. A number of alternative proposals have been put forward. At least one of these, that of defaulting to keep and semiprotect (COI warning: proposed by myself) seems to have some generic support in both camps, even if it is not without problems -most importantly, it requires also a change in the protection policy.

I think we should move on to act on the policy so that we can settle the thing. Two main issues are on the stake:

- Given the above consensus, the wording of the policy should make clear that we default to keep always, unless in the case of non-consensus BLP where the subject explicitly requests deletion?

- Given that above, should we semi-protect or take other proactive measures on non-consensual BLPs?

I invite discussion. Just a note: this is not the place to discuss again the issue of "default to delete" vs "default to keep" again: consensus for now has been established above. This is the place to discuss how to move from there.

Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really think that neutrality trumps all else in this matter. We should not give too much weight in content disputes to those with a clear conflict of interest(ie the subject of the article). The decision to delete or not delete should be made by those without a conflict of interest. Neutrality is a Foundation principle, and one that we have based everything else one. This is an editorial decision and we are required to use neutrality as our guiding editorial principal. I see no neutrality issue in giving extra attention to "non-consensual BLPs", but we should not give such weight to deletion discussions as it is a deviation from neutrality. That is my say on the matter. ^Chillum 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to getting into counting numbers, but 31 support and 54 oppose doesn't really lead me to consider some compromise which includes a major portion of whatever the proponents want. I think it is a case by case consideration which will not benefit from legislation. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we at least set in stone what is currently consensual -that is, that they will default to keep? The basic problem is that this cannot be left simply at admin's discretion, because that is the root of many troubles. We should have some kind of definite policy, and to avoid this constant tug-of-war a compromise would be nice in my opinion. --Cyclopia^talk 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that we should set much in stone. Why can't the policy be "use your head"? Protonk (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to set that in stone. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus to delete the article, simple as that. If an admin closes an XFD as "no consensus" and then deletes the article, it's without consensus, isn't it? I don't see a problem here. Any admin who thinks no consensus to delete means they are allowed to delete the article is not doing their job right. If there are reasons in policies and guidelines for deletion that outweigh those for keeping, then the debate can and should be closed as "delete" anyway. Regards SoWhy 17:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If an admin closes an XFD as "no consensus" and then deletes the article, it's without consensus, isn't it? I don't see a problem here. Any admin who thinks no consensus to delete means they are allowed to delete the article is not doing their job right. - The problem is that a lot of admins think that they're doing their job right by doing that. So much that one of them actually proposed to default this way, and even if the discussion showed they're a minority, they're not a trivial minority at all. See the discussion above. It has to be set in stone somehow, because people like you and me at best will think that is redundant, but given the difference of interpretations, it is necessary to reflect explicitly the consensus above. Protonk: The point is that heads are different. We could substitute all of WP policies with "use your head", but it's not going to work this way :) We need to explicitly state what is the course of action for this, because the wording is ambiguous and the debate that just finished should make it quite clear that it is not as obvious as we think it is, and it led to a lot of bitter clashes between editors in the past (do I need to remember the Shankbone AfD/DRV drama?) --Cyclopia^talk 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We ideally operate on use your head as a governing principle. I think that we have become (and I have been guilty of this) too obsessed with uniformity of outcomes and purity in process. As a result we are swimming in rules and provisos meant to proscribe some subset of actions. In my opinion it is more important that we have a smaller ruleset than that we always have some rule to point to. If we need to point out that minds differ on these things and that contentious actions are taken at the hazard of the deleting admin, fine. But I don't want some new layer of policy because the admin population is heterogeneous. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I actually clarified the wording to reflect what seems the outcome of the previous discussion about "default to delete". I already know this is going to be reverted in a few seconds and rain a lot of fire on me :) but please come here and discuss what to do. --Cyclopia^talk 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I reverted you. It's strange that you made the change after seeing objection on the talk page but classified it as a bold change. I won't embark on a digression about editing policy pages (given that it would handily contradict my complaints about too many rules). Protonk (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen, no problem. It was a move to let people see what a proposed wording could be and clarify one of the two points we're talking about. I understand it was not the best way to do it, sorry. --Cyclopia^talk 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should reiterate that admins should not delete articles on the basis of MfD's that have no consensus. "No consensus" for something is a terrible reason to do that something. I am not sure how such an idea gained popularity in a community that values consensus based decisions. For deletions without consensus we have WP:CSD. ^Chillum 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what came out of the previous discussion (and what I tried to do in the edit that Protonk reverted). Any idea on how to word it? --Cyclopia^talk 10:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the change as you made it and think it is supported by the discussion above. If there are any other exceptions they should be pointed out; otherwise they are presumably rare enough that we will have to file them under the general common sense/IAR exception. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so" seems to make the matter clear. ^Chillum 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Added, but it is a bit redundant now. Maybe you can make it better. Also, it should be clarified that deletion of NC BLP where subject requested deletion is the only official exception. --Cyclopia^talk 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Do I correctly infer that there is a chunk missing from the archive? Page 36 of the discussion starts with an "Alternative No. 3," but I don't see alternatives #1 and #2 on page 35. Also, the only thing from User:Lar that I see that resembles a proposal is more like a summary of a proposal by somebody else.

Finally, I might note that the section title ("Non consensual BLPs") is ambiguous, because it could refer either to BLPs that exist without the consent of the subject, or to BLPs with no consensus to delete. Because Wikipedia articles can have a lasting effect on the outside world, the former ought to be deleted, regardless of what the consensus is to do about the latter. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

I think it would be reasonable to rename this page Wikipedia:Deletion, without the redundant "policy" qualifier. As far as I know, no other policies have the word "policy" in their title, so I'm not sure why it's needed here. That said, it isn't a big deal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, scratch that, I forgot about WP:BOT and WP:BLOCK. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention wp:editing policy and wp:username policy... probably others Gigs (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of Google Watch AfD

Can anyone explain to me why this AfD is reasonably causing anyone "emotional distress" etc.? Where can an editor appeal such arbitrary implementation of this policy? -- Kendrick7^talk 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You should ask the blanking admin first.  Sandstein  15:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I already did. He simply insisted blanking was OK upon any request. If that's what the policy actually is in practice, WP:DEL should be updated. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing policy based on the whim of an administrator in a single case is a bad idea. Better to get the administrator to account for themselves.  Skomorokh  00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Our policies should reflect our actual practices, per WP:IAR. This isn't a single case, another related AfD was blanked and protected last month. It's quite obvious that the will of the community is that AfD's can be blanked and protected at any time. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just how does the will of one or two administrators = "the will of the community"? Look, if you have a problem with these actions, take it up with the admins, and purse dispute resolution if the response is not satisfactory. If your interest is in changing this longstanding policy to be more liberal about blanking discussions, then I suggest an RfC here.  Skomorokh  00:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't, in particular, have a problem with these actions, which on their face seem quite trivial, if out of policy. These AfD's and blankings do cover articles on nearly 1/5 of my watchlist, and so I can't say for sure how widespread such behavior is. And yet, as a policy-wonk, I do wish to square the circle: which is to say, if there is little on no resistance to blanking of AfD's on a whim, then the deletion policy should reflect that reality. I leave it to uninterested parties to cry foul if they actually object to such behavior. I, myself, just came off a month long block for daring to even give question to these deletions; perhaps you are braver than I. So far, Skomorokh, you seem to be the lone objector. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kendrick7, it's not the way it works. Policy is not merely a description of practices (despite what some people think), otherwise we would have a policy that describes how to do vandalism, since it is a practice that happens 24/7 on WP. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines policy as "a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decision". Now, if courtesy blankings were made against policy (which I do not believe personally, but it may be the case indeed), you should go for normal avenues of dispute resolution. Coming here and changing policy without wide consensus to do so is pointy behaviour and disruption on policy pages -especially touchy ones like this- cannot be taken lightly. I understand your concerns, really, but you should go through proper avenues to solve that. --Cyclopia^talk 01:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As an author of much policy around here, I assure you that Misters Merriam and Webster's archaic understandings, which well pre-date our project's advent, aren't actually in play here. By making the policy line up with practice, I am resolving any inherent dispute by the simplest means possible. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We've actually done this repeatedly before as a result of marginal requests for oversight, as well as via OTRS tickets, especially where there have been privacy or security-related issues - Alison ^❤ 05:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that is done "at any time for any reason". I would guess most of the hesitance to use Kendrick's version stems from this particular wording, and certainly my own does. Can a somewhat less broad wording be suggested instead? lifebaka++ 05:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To approach from another perspective, is there ever a time where it shouldn't be done? Given that the history is always accessible, I'm not seeing much of an issue, especially as the xFD is done and dusted by definition - Alison ^❤ 05:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any improvement, by way of compromise? - Alison ^❤ 05:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Lifebaka I find Kendrick's wording deeply problematic, both as a description of actual practice and a proposal for policy. If you are attempting the former, let's see some examples and word the paragraph accordingly; if the latter then we ought to be proceeding on the basis a better argument than "why not". Regards,  Skomorokh  06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This rather neatly avoids my question, does it not? I'm loath to give out examples which are OTRS/privacy/oversight related for obvious reasons - but they're there - Alison ^❤ 06:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with the below) That does not advance the discussion much. This is a wiki, an informational network that thrives on accessibility and transparency; blanking damages this network by making discussions difficult to access for editors as well as readers (blanking hides pages from WP's internal search engine). Blanking is and should be done under some circumstances, but we need to establish just what those are or should be.  Skomorokh  06:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Skomorokh, I'm in broad agreement with the changes you just made here. I think that's pretty indicative of the way things are right now & gives due weight to privacy concerns - Alison ^❤ 06:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but it is a minimalist version. What happens when two editors disagree over a blanking and consult the policy for guidance? What stops someone from abusing blanking, or injudiciously reverting it, for unscrupulous ends?  Skomorokh  06:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that I am interested in discussing this further, and would prefer if Alison's last version was maintained in the absence of any proposals here.  Skomorokh  19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

← It hinges around the word 'harm', which means different things to different people. In my opinion, clear harm to people tends to trump convenience for editors, etc. I'm not sure how someone could unscrupulously blank a page (to what end?), maybe you could elaborate. I'd rather not get into the game of enumerating circumstances, though, as there are always valid exceptions to these from time-to-time and there are times (privacy, safety, personally identifying information not covered by oversight, potentially damaging commentary) where it is simply prudent to do so. If two editors disagree over a courtesy blanking, it would likely be handled like any other editorial dispute, barring some of the reasons I just gave - Alison ^❤ 06:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring whether or not the blanking was proper, I note that, statistically, a single action does not make a trend. I agree with Skomorokh here: if you have any issues, take them up with the admins involved. If you want to make changes to this page, please start a discussion and point us at some demonstrable proof that your change does, in fact, reflect common practice. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on WT:PROD: Change WP:PROD to prevent removal of tag on unsourced BLPs, then prod 'em all

There is an ongoing discussion on WT:PROD about a dramatic change on WP:PROD that maybe interests people watching this policy. --Cyclopia^talk 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting subpages

I was wondering, say for some odd reason, an administrator deleted WP:NAS. Would this delete all of the subpages too, including WP:NAS/R and WP:NAS/D? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page. lifebaka++ 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo?

Undeletion In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It serves two primary functions: the restoration of uncontroversially deleted content and...

Shouldn't the last phrase read either: "...the restoration of uncontroversial deleted content and..." or "...the restoration of controversially deleted content and..." depending on the precise meaning intended? "[P]ages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions" suggests that the deletion was controversial (ie "controversially deleted content) but that there is some uncontroversial material on the page (ie "uncontroversial deleted content"). Any clarification appreciated! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that "uncontroversially" is correct. To expand slightly on the text following your excerpt, REFUND restores PRODs (which can be contested at any time) and certain CSDs (such as A7, easily contested by adding an assertion of notability). Controversial speedies should go to WP:Deletion review. Leaving a note at WT:Requests for undeletion will probably get a more knowledgeable response. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

End to speedy deletes?

I started an article that was speedily deleted. I had questions over the notability of the person but didn't think that it was so bad that it had to be speedily deleted. The article was about a real estate agent (Sharona Alperin) who was a rock star groupie and had a song named after her. She has been the source of occasional articles for over 15 years, not just a flurry of articles at once then nothing.

The purpose of this section is not to discuss keep or delete in that specific article.

The purpose of this section is to seek alternate solutions to this event. I can think of several solutions:

1. If an administrator closes an article as speedy delete and is challenged from a valid standpoint, the administrator will be blocked, ban, whipped, and/or sent to jail. I oppose this.

2. If an administrator wants to close an article as speedy delete and it gibberish and vandalism, the article is deleted as vandalism. This already happens and is not disputed.

3. *** If an administrator wants to close an article as speedy delete and there could be valid reasons for disputing the decision, the admin will move the article to userspace and continue the AFD for at least 24 hours.

1. 1. NO!, 2. already happening and ok, 3. New idea, good! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, an article on a person needs to credibly assert their notability to avoid speedy deletion. If the article didn't do this, that'd explain the deletion. Sharona Alperin would be a classic case of WP:BLP1E anyway, so it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD. She could be briefly mentioned in My Sharona, no? Fences&Windows 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The initial spotlight on her is the song. However, there are other articles about her. So she is known not for 1 thing but for 1.1253 things. Maybe the threshold is 2 things! I am not fully convinced that she is notable. But this section is not about that decision but how to handle speedy deletes. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

legislating to take account of individual cases is poor law making. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• In this case they should have redirected instead. That way the article is waiting in history for someone to find sources which establish notability. There's no need for administrative involvement, which is especially good for newbies. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

RfCs in userspace

Relevant discussion involving three MfD cases is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for limiting number of nominations for deletion per user.

The proposal is simply this. Limit "Nomination for deletion" tagging to 10 a day for each user. That is no user (including admins) can tag more than 10 pages a day for deletion. We do want to have some conent on WP, no? --Zarutian (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• More accurately we want sourced encyclopedic content written in npov terms and you idea will never fly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• If a user is nominating more than 10 inappropriate deletion nominations, then it's an issue which can be dealt with without any new policy. If they are nominating more than 10 appropriate deletion nominations, then what's the problem? Bad proposal. --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, no good reason for this. The number of deletion nominations anyone makes is irrelevant, the quality of them is essential. If your concern is more or better content on Wikipedia, it would perhaps be more useful when your only edit in six months time was not a change of policy proposal, but some actual content editing... Fram (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would love to edit content on Wikipedia if it wasnt subjected to so much bit and link rot by constant (often bogus) calls for deletion --Zarutian (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose even I might surpass that limit! But even if it were made to be 100, I would still oppose. If we have a person making good noms on articles that need to be deleted, more power to them.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no limit to how many bogus articles are created per day, and Wikiproject Notability has an enormous backlog. We need more people making smart nominations. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for bulk nominations

The proposal in the previous section seems too rigid as there may be good reason to delete large numbers of articles at once. For example, a botnet might direct a wave of spam at us and extraordinary measures would then be required. But we might usefully say something about the way in which such mass deletions are best handled. For example, please consider the following proposal:

• If a large number of similar articles is to be deleted but there is no obvious consensus for this then some preliminary discussion is best before a large number of nominations is made. This should be done in one of the following forms:

1. A group nomination of the articles so that they may be discussed together
2. One or more test cases to establish a pattern of outcomes which may thus prepare the ground for a group nomination which can then take care of the rest
3. An RfC advertised at centralised discussion if there is something exceptional about the case and so an extraordinary process is required. The current unsourced-BLP matter seems a good example of this.

Colonel Warden (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but does this need to be policy? You could just update WP:BUNDLE or link to an essay from "See also". --Explodicle (T/C) 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP prod

Hi all, I've reverted the BLP prod section here (just found it, I thought it was going to happen via a separate policy (currently showing up as proposed) rather than here. In any case, I object to changing this without a final discussion of the implementation. In particular I feel that anyone using a sticky prod should be obligated to search for sources themselves first (ie WP:BEFORE). I think the majority of editors here would agree with that even though the working group went a different way. In general for major changes like this the working group's final work gets reviewed by a broader group. See the de-admining proposal for example. The same thing should happen here. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've undone your removal. The consensus you are searching for already exists at WP:RFC/BLP. On that RfC, editors were largely in favour of the BLP PROD system coming into place. The length of the proposal was agreed at WT:STICKY. Sufficient consensus does exist to start rolling out this much needed improvement, and there is simply no need to hold yet another dicussion at another forum. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding to what Peter said immediately above me, there was a proposal at that RFC Phase II to require editors to look for sources first. That proposal did not achieve consensus. I should know, i'm the one that wrote the RFC closure/consensus summary. As it stands now, editors are encouraged, but not required, to look for sources. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your close said: ". In addition, there appears to be a consensus significant minority who feel that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. The community will have to determine whether or not this is a valid part of the new process." Where has the community done so? Hobit (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#WP:BEFORE. NW (Talk) 18:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that huge discussion somehow (didn't notice the collapse). So encouraged or should try to find sources, but not required, is what was agreed to right? I just added that to the main policy document, is the wording acceptable? Hobit (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you already reverted with an edit summary of "Wrong". Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not obligatory for the tagger to look for sources. They are encouraged to, just as they are encouraged to clean up all BLPs, but there is no requirement to do so. NW (Talk) 18:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I used the word "expected". Would "encouraged" be okay in your mind? Hobit (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for WP:BEFORE to be added to this policy, nor is there any written requirement. I suggest you continue this discussion at WT:STICKY, because at the moment, this page mirrors WP:STICKY (which does not mention WP:BEFORE). Editors have already expressed their views pretty clearly though. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

<Deindent> Quickie summary No. 2 of Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#WP:BEFORE seems pretty clear that the word "encouraged" (or less popular but still acceptable "should") should be included in this. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support User:Hobit's point that we should make it clear that WP:BEFORE is expected to be followed. This seems necessary to maintain good order and prevent bot-like mass nominations which would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the whole thing is gone right now. I want to clearly voice an opinion that those that want to make this policy should come up with the exact wording they want and hold a final RfC. If WP:BEFORE isn't mentioned, I don't think it has a chance in heck of getting consensus (I'd say 50/50 if it does.) Hobit (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Consensus has already been established. I linked you to it. A single sentence of "Before adding deletion tags, editors are encouraged (but not required) to search for sources" would be acceptable. NW (Talk) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll disagree that a broad consenous about the details has been established. If it enjoys general support then a final RfC will provide solid evidence of that and the debate will be pretty much over. I personally don't think this is a good idea on the whole and am especially worried about the BEFORE issue. Others apparently have other concerns (might interfere with current BLP policies for example). I think it's not at all obvious if the details of this are generally acceptable to the community as a whole. On the wording, I'd prefer the "encouraged" without the "not required" part. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know why I have this on my watch list but I certainly didn't expect to see multiparty edit wars over deletion policy. I've protected the page for a week; this should be sufficient time to determine whether there is consensus for the proposed change.  Sandstein  20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The way to enforce BEFORE is to make it a WP:AGF assumption that one has done it before nominating. People that that repeatedly nominate articles for AFD which are often proven quickly to be notable or otherwise quickly pass whatever the nomination claimed failed the article should be warned and editor dispute resolution (Wikiquette or RFC/U) should be brought forward. But it otherwise impossible to enforce BEFORE for every AFD that is brought. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course. But there seemed to be some debate as to if this BLP prod bypassed BEFORE. I feel that the discussion said it didn't and that that needs to be in any policy. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that discussion said that this BLP prod did not allow taggers to ignore WP:BEFORE. I linked you to a section twice that proved the opposite. Maureen, Scott Macdonald, Mr.Z-man, doncram, Quantpole, STifle, Gonzonoir, Calliopejen1, kslays, NuclearWarfare (myself), Rd232, KrebMarkt, Bfigura, and Balloonman explicitly favored having WP:BEFORE not apply to BLP prods. Hobit (yourself), Ilywrch, DGG, and Pmanderson explicitly favored WP:BEFORE applying to BLP prods. That's certainly a consensus by any reasonable standard. NW (Talk) 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I view encouraged to follow as != ignore. Perhaps that's were we are talking past each other? Hobit (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, given the lock-down of the article I think it would make sense to discuss exactly what text is desired here. I (obviously) favor an RfC on the topic, but don't feel that as an opposer I should be selecting the proposed language of the RfC. Is this the language supporters want? Hobit (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

Main page: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor. Before adding deletion tags, editors are encouraged (but not required) to search for sources.

If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

I guess we were talking past each other. That's fine with me, though I would like source to be linked to WP:RS. NW (Talk) 20:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "good faith" be added, eg. "editors are encouraged (but not required) to make a good faith effort to search...". Particularly with people, I would hate to see an editor search on a name like "John Smith" and not find any apparent relevant sources in the first several search engine hit pages, only to be shown later that search on "John Smit +uniquecharacterist_term" would have yielded several hits and then being accused of bad faith. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated version:

---

Biographies of living people

Main page: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Wikipedia now requires biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 to indicate at least one source. New unsourced biographies of living people can be proposed for deletion. Unlike standard proposed deletion, these articles must contain a source before the tag can be removed. If the article remains unsourced after 10 days (in contrast to 7 days for a regular proposed deletion), the articles can be deleted. After adding the deletion tag to an article, the user must notify the creator or main contributor. Before adding deletion tags, editors are encouraged (but not required) to make a good faith search for sources.

If the article is deleted, it may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a source. The undeletion can be requested either through the deleting administrator or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

---

Other suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

The page protection does not need to and should not last a week. There have been enough stall tactics and delays already. And the suggestion to have another RFC is completely ludicrous and should not be given any further consideration. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is consensus for the change (including the details) then the RfC will fly through. If not, then the RfC was actually needed. As we generally do hold an RfC for major policy changes _after_ the details get hammered out, I don't see why we wouldn't here. The de-admining process is one where the general idea seemed to have consensus but the devil was in the details. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place about the wording of the sticky proposal at WT:STICKY. Input would be much appreciated, particularly from editors with experience of writing and maintaining policy and dealing with BLP issues. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)