Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

"Dicdef" criteria removed

Given the decision to permit articles on words at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is clearly no longer a deletion criteria, so I have removed it. I mean, if an article is not encyclopedic, then it's clearly no problem to delete, but just being about a word is now not sufficient for deletion.- Wolfkeeper 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• What was the change in NAD, specifically? Protonk (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Arguably the Wikipedia isn't even an encyclopedia right now, depending on what policy you point at. Some idiots edit warred it through. Specifically both WP:ISNOT and WP:Wikipedia is a dictionary have it that articles on words are allowed; it doesn't say that they're all allowed, but they are allowed 'in some cases'. But anyone can claim that any article is a suitable case, there's no restrictions at all. In a deletion review, the distinction between 'some cases' and 'any case' is basically meaningless.- Wolfkeeper 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the policy right now. So it's pointless having it as a deletion criteria. As it stands, this is, in my non pointy opinion, no longer a criteria.- Wolfkeeper 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I mean to say is, what has substantively changed about NAD? Articles on words have always been allowed, so long as they are encyclopedia articles, not dictionary definitions. the distinction isn't clear (and never will be), so people fight over the margins, but this isn't a recent development. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. Nothing substantial has changed. One policy page page just agrees with another one now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But the edit in question (I'm assuming this) is over

"This is especially true for Wiktionary. To request a transwiki operation in this case, please first search the Wiktionary to see whether a dictionary entry does not already exist, and then simply tag an article with {{Copy to Wiktionary}}. Articles that can never be anything other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") should preferably be merged and redirected (within Wikipedia) in an adjective→noun or a verb→gerund manner. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article to redirect to, the dicdef should either be considered for deletion, or turned into a disambiguation page or a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry using the template {{wi}}."

Which accords w/ NAD. It doesn't say "delete articles on words". It says "articles which can never be anything more than dicdefs can be sent to wiktionary". Protonk (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was, the discussion at WP:NOTDIC made that policy page agree with WP:NOT, there were no substantial changes at all. The wording here is absolutely fine; the change to NOTDIC does not in any way necessitate change here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is a dicdef if it's not an article on a word that covers its meanings and usages? Those are now allowed by two major policies. You just did it. This is no longer a deletion criteria.- Wolfkeeper 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't presented here as a deletion criteria. Guidance on transwiki'ing is provided (under "Alternatives to deletion"), and I see no reason to remove it. –xeno^talk 17:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What Xeno said, but I'm struggling to see your point. Nothing changed about NAD. But you use the words "no longer" as though something changed. Further, there is not a deletion criteria for "articles about words", because that isn't what NAD/NOT prohibit. And finally, there is a difference between a dictionary def. and an article about a word. Prohibit is a dicdef, Nucular is an article about a word. That's obviously just an example and even nucular had more than one contentious deletion debate, but there is a clear difference. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the initial point, the change in WP:NAD that Wolfkeeper objects to, is this. That change is based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Proposal. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Current rules on restoration of uncontroversial deleted material to userspace?

I looked around and couldn't find current rules on this - though it used to be the case that uncontroversial (e.g. not legal or BLP issues) pages deleted via AFD could be restored to userspace pretty much for the asking. The particular case: I want to restore Motif of harmful sensation to my userspace for further work and/or putting on the web somewhere else - it was deleted for being OR. I could just press the button to do this, but I wanted to check first :-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is your reason for the benefit of the project?

You could ask User:Sgeureka if it is all right, if you are unsure.

You could ask anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to do it.

You could add yourself to the above category, and then it would be highly proper for you to do it yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that was the "yes" I was after ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty in nominating an article for deletion

There are so many hoops to jump through, it would make more sense to have a link on the page that says perhaps "report this article." I'm always running into junk articles, but the one time I submitted an article for deletion it was too big a hassle to ever bother with again. Case in point, this article which I found this morning. Pure junk. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_spoilers I see now that it is being considered for deletion. You guys are pretty good, but my recommendation for an easier way to nominate still stands. 75.121.33.79 (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Have you considered registering an account? Twinkle is a tool available to registered users that helps with the nomination process. –xeno^talk 14:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I highly recommend Twinkle, you just give it a reason to delete, and it does all the work for you. CTJF83 chat 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I had done it by hand a few times and it sucked, but with Twinkle it's trivial. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another bright idea

Ok, whose bright idea was it to start deleting a load of pages from the wiki again? (I remember last time that the entries of web comics came under threat. Now it seems there are file managers that "lack notability". Whatever that means... Is the wiki running out of HD space or why this periodic spring cleaning. It seems useless to me.

Ajasja Ljubetič —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.228.210 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Using Redirects as a way of deleting articles without going through the AFD process

I'm guessing that this has probably come up in the past but I am basically wondering of how to deal with someone who is "deleting" (for all practical purposes) articles by turning them into redirects to inappropriate, though related articles. Like for example, what if someone redirected the article on World War I to the article on Treaty of Versailles based on a claim that the WWI article was a content fork of the latter? This seems like a egregious violation of Wikipedia policy on Deletion, not to mention WP:Consensus and associated guidelines.radek (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging and redirecting are part of the editing process, and can be undone without an admin (unless there is full protection). Major changes to articles require consensus, of course. What is considered major will probably depend on the article, the editors working on it, and how contentious it is. Redirecting as an end run around the deletion process is obviously a major change and is against policy. And for some more obscure articles it may happen under the radar and not be noticed. There is always going to be tension between the guideline WP:BOLD and the policy WP:CONSENSUS, but CONSENSUS is a policy. Then there is the Bold, Revert, Discuss editing tactic, but I prefer to discuss first. The example you mentioned would be reverted rather quickly, however. Do you have an example or two? Has anyone talked to the person in a civil way? — Becksguy (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• BRD Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is over the article German-Polish War (1002-1018) which User:Skapperod is redirecting [1] to a controversial article he himself created. Even if that article somehow survives the current RfC (which it doesn't look like) obviously an article on a military conflict is different than an article on the treaty which ended that military conflict (hence my WWI/Versailles example), so this kind of "deletion" is really irritating and disruptive, particularly since he's not even giving me a chance to work on the article. In fact his justification for the redirect that the article was a "unsourced stub" is misleading - it was a newly created article for which I clearly indicated that it was a work in progress [2].radek (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Links to articles proposed for deletion

I want to propose an article for deletion. There are about five links to it in other articles that were placed mostly by the same author, and several more links on lists. What should I do with these links? First have the article deleted, then the editors of the other articles (possibly I) will deal with the resulting red links? Or first remove/rewrite the links, and then propose for deletion? The former seems impolite to the other articles, the latter is unfair to the article proposed for deletion: after the links are removed, I could say in an argument that look, there are no links to it. So, what is the policy? I'm surprised this is not mentioned in this Deletion policy. --GaborPete (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just nominate the article for deletion via the normal AfD process. If it is deleted, you may, at your own discretion, remove the resulting redlinks from other articles, but in general it is not something which is considered of great importance. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite see why the creation of a bunch of dead links with one move is not really a problem, but what can I do. Thanks. Another question: What happens to the titles that redirect to the article to be deleted? Do they get deleted automatically, or do I have to PROD them individually? --GaborPete (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G8 applies to them, but the will need to be pointed out individually. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Mispelled Articles - or creation of "Green links"

When wearing my WikiGnome hat, I correct misspellings of retrieve and its derivatives, and various misspellings of rhythm - rhythem, rhythim, rhythym, rhytm, rythem, rythim, rythm & rythym.

My bugbear is that the articles rythm and rythm guitar both exist, albeit as redirects to the correct spelling. The problem is that editors enter and link the incorrect spelling, see that it forms a blue link, so leave it, believing it to be correct. They sometimes then repeat the misspelling later in the article. The net result is a Wikipedia article that contains several misspellings and does not look "professional".

Having looked at the talk page archives, I see that the argument has been made that misspelled articles should be kept, as redirects, to help those people with poor spelling, but this argument has never been accepted or refuted. The same argument appears equally valid for the deletion of such an article - we only help people to improve their spelling by giving them good spelling, not by making misspellings look correct, by appearing as a blue link in an article.

I would like to propose that either

1. All/most misspelled articles are deleted or
2. A new link colour (green?) is created for links to articles that are either re-directs or disambiguation pages. The green link will alert the editor to the fact that more work needs to be done, and allows the misspelled article to remain, to help those with poor spelling.

Clicking on the green link would either run-through the redirect showing the correct page (with the correct spelling) to link directly to, or it would open the disambiguation page allowing the correct link to be selected, rather than leaving the casual reader at a disambiguation page, often only to find the article the original editor was hoping to link to, does not even exist.

(I initially called it a green link, but on consideration, that could create problems for people with red-green colour-blindness)
Arjayay (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• A solution looking for a problem. I agree some misspelling redirects are unlikely and excessive, but it would be better to just correct misspellings, possibly by bot, than to rewrite the software to make misspelled links a special colour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to have overlooked the problem of links to disambig pages, rather than real articles, which this would highlight.
    However:- would you support my first option; that all/most misspelled articles e.g. rythm and rythm guitar are deleted?
    This would overcome my original bugbear of misspelled blue links and their spelling being copied elsewhere in the article.
    Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Even those of us who have had always been blessed with good spelling let our fingers slip from time to time, and sometimes (having only seen the incorrect spelling) enter the wrong spelling in entire good faith or (having seen several spellings) are genuinely unsure of the correct spelling. So on those grounds, alone, deleting misspelt redirects is a truly terrible idea. (No, I didn't misspell misspelt; that's a valid variant.) And we know that good spelling, like perfect pitch, is something has been neither evenly nor justly distributed among the users. Now add the large number of schoolchildren and users whose native language is not some dialect of English. There's no guarantee that someone who hits a redlink will know it's because of the spelling; he or she may go look some place else (and perhaps read some useless web or blog page that spells Rythm Guitar that way throughout while propagating all sorts of other errors and misunderstandings). ¶ However, the proposer did raise a very good point that I hadn't thought of before. Unless there's some indication that Rythm is a positively false (not just a rare or variant) spelling, an editor might think it was correct, and continue to use it. If you have Wikipedia:popups enabled, you can see by mousing over that Untied States is a redirect, and what the agreed (but not necessarily the only correct) title is. But only a minority of readers are editors, only a minority of editors are registered editors, and only a small minority of registered editors have enabled popups. So, if it's technically feasible, a colour (redirects to color) flag like green or yet another shade of blue might be very helpful. Ideally (but probably even less feasibly) it would flag ordinary redirects such as Queen Victoria and colour simply as redirects, while flagging variants that everyone agrees are straightforward misspellings like Rythm and Untied States as such, and to be avoided. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy

The subsection "Deletion" currently reads:

"The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so."

As many have noted (see WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon), some people close AfDs too early, even though there is a strong community consensus for respecting the seven-day minimum. Consequently I propose to add the following to the policy (and also to WP:DRV):

"Administrators may without discussion undo any closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed."

This will encourage compliance with policy while not preventing genuine WP:SNOW cases (in such cases no admin is likely to undo the closure).  Sandstein  20:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh hell no. The last thing we need is closing/unclosing wheel wars. If something is genuinely closed too early it should be discussed with the closer and if that doesn't work brought to DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there seem to be far too many of these early closures (see the AN thread), almost the majority of all closures! DRV has in the past been reluctant (IMHO wrongly) to overturn a premature but otherwise correct closure. Therefore we need some way to give admins who want to close AfDs, because that seems to be a fun thing to do, some incentive not to do it too early and crowd out those admins that actually want to follow the rules.  Sandstein  21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Lets see how the clarification of the "168 hour rule" works first. A few admins have clearly taken the approach that anything on the seventh-day log is fair game and close just about everything on that log within 2 hours of the start of the day. That means some are getting closed 23-24 hours too early. As DGG said on WP:AN, that practice has led others to follow - I have probably closed one or two AfDs a few hours early, but I haven't closed any in the last couple of weeks because there are never any left to close! If the new guidance works (lets see how it goes tomorrow) I don't think there's a need to explicitly allow closure reversions. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  I should add that I think strict observance of the 168 hour rule is beneficial. We shouldn't assume that AfD !voters only scan the front two logs of the week. I for one often review AfDs on the last two pages, looking for debates where I can have late input that might help achieve a consensus. The more we can encourage that by fixing the "earliest closure" time of an AfD, the better. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• It should be made plain that closing early isn't acceptable. The rules are clear. Just follow them. I'd like to avoid the proposed way forward because it seems better to just expect people to do the right thing rather than "punish". But if the problem stays as bad as is stated, we may need something like that. Or just start putting 12 hour blocks on admins who routinely violate the rules.Hobit (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You're somewhat demonizing the situation here. I think that a decent number of people (myself included) thought that anything on WP:AFDO was fair game, when in fact it may be being closed as many as 24 hours early. I'm perfectly happy to comply (in fact the only reason I was closing them, is I thought that there was a sort of backlog in closes, when in fact the opposite was true) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • We've got DRV for a reason. In the case that an AfD was genuinely a close call, and may have been changed by late input, DRV would probably be usable to reverse or reopen it. On the other hand, if it were an obvious case and got closed a little early, I think that'd just be failing to check box 3 on form 121a rather than prevention of any actual harm. For those that frequently do it, have you tried talking to them about it? They may not even know that it's technically supposed to be a literal 168 hours, rather than "sometime into the 7th day". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, not my intent. My point was that the proposed rule isn't needed because it approaches things in the wrong way. We don't make rules of the form "if you do X we do Y". Rather we say "don't do X" and trust folks to do that. Should that trust be broken by a user or users then we take an action (discussion, warning, block, etc. as needed). Hobit (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. 7 days are 7 days are 7 days. I can't believe that there is people thinking "sometime into the 7th day". It simply isn't serious. --Cyclopia^talk 00:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Stron Oppose no, hell no. I'd guess that 90% of AFD's do not last the full 7 days and generally they don't need to.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that we should A) change the rule B) ignore the rule or C) the rule doesn't require the full 7 days? Hobit (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The rule doesn't mirror practice or practicality. C) the rule does not require the seven full days and the words "At least" should be removed. Seven days is the general guideline, but if there is a clear consensus before that, then AFD can and are closed early. Keeping an AFD open longer than necessary can be a waste of time and energy. Absolute requirements for this is beaucracitic wonkery and can be distracting. Just because an article has been nominated for AFD does not mean that said request automatically gets covered by a guarantee of "this won't be closed for at least seven days." There are bad faith noms and dubious noms wherein somebody might honestly want a good article deleted because they (wrongly) believe it is biased/wrong/whathaveyou. There are also noms where the nominating criteria is clearly shown to be wrong or is fixed. To say that an admin can't look at an AFD and say, "Yeah, the nominated article was bad and didn't provide any sources, but the current version is a clear keep." Anybody can put a tag on an article, that does not mean that single individuals get to create distractions by having a guarantee that the "afd nom" will be open for seven days. Insisting that the AFD tag is sacrosant in these scenarios is dumb.
    • Similarly, if it is obvious that an article will be deleted and that said article might be borderlined BLP violation (or borderline attack page) then it again would be acceptable to delete said article before the full seven days---even if it isn't a true CSD candidate. If keeping an obvious delete open can do harm to the subject (or wikipedia), then it is policy wonkery to make an absolute requirement to keep it open seven days.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • • but if there is a clear consensus before that, : So, if we have an AfD with 3 keeps and no deletes after one day, we can close it as keep because consensus is already clear? --Cyclopia^talk 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
          • No, consensus is not determined by the number of !votes, but rather the strength of the comments. If you have 3 people !voting keep or delete it doesn't matter, you have to weigh what is being said. But if you have a person nom an article for notability and have 3 "Speedy Keeps: This person is a member of the US House of Representatives." Then by all means, yes close it. The rationale behind the AFD is clearly flawed. Or if it has been open for four days, and 20 people have uniformily said "Keep" then guess what, I'm not going to lose any sleep. Or if on the fifth day, somebody comes in and completely reworks an AFD that was heading towards deletion, addressed all of the concerns, and wrote an article that is clearly worth keeping, then keep it. Insisting that an AFD be kept open despite ration and reason simply because a single person tagged it for AFD is poor logic.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I wholeheartedly endorse Balloonman's analysis. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • NOTE: If somebody is actively working on an article and trying to get it into shape/clean it up, then I am generally inclined to leave the AFD open (unless it is crystal clear that the subject itself is not appropriate for an article eg a coatrack/harmful article.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here's a completely fair question: Is the purpose of the 7 days to allow discussion, or is it a reasonable amount of time for those that created/were involved with the article to respond as sort of the "de facto" authority on the subject of discussion? The latter would be the need for a hard 7 days (7x24x60 min period) for discussion, but if its more the former, and the closure has gotten sufficient discussion for an admin to clearly make a decision, then it's more a 7 day guidance and not requirement. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a little bit of both. Which is why I added the note. If a person is actively involved in trying to salvage an article, I am much more liable to leave it open for the full seven days and would be much more inclined to giving those people the fullest extent available to save it. BUT the purpose of AFD is NOT to get people to finally work on inferior articles (that is a positive benefit) the purpose is to determine if the article merits inclusion or not. Plus, your question preposits the deletion route, AFD's can be closed early as keeps as well. (They should NEVER be closed early as "Consensus not reached.")---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would clearly consider that if a user has stated they've tried to do some rescuing and shown effort, but the following discussion is still difficult to assess, I would leave it open. If the edits added clearly push discussion to keep, and it's only 6.x days, early closure is still fine. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

99% of the time if somebody is making a concerted effort to save an article, I say give them the benefit of the doubt, give them the whole week to get the article into shape. In some rare cases, the subject matter may not be enough to warrant keeping the article or the tone might be so bad that it could potentially be deleted as an attack/BLP issue. In those cases, assuming its not a blatant BLP issue, Userfication might be an option.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem, YOU are not the problem. There are plenty of admins who will come into a complicated discussion, ignore improvements, count noses, and issue a simple delete or keep with no rationale. THAT is a problem. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Early closes can happen for good reason, but if someone objects, almost always it is better to let the process run its course. DRV shouldn't be used to continue a discussion that would have otherwise been continued on the AfD page. However, I would expect the early-close-reverter to provide a good reason. Thus: "A closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed may be undone if any administrator supports a good reason allowing the discussion to continue for the normal period. The discussion should then not be subsequently closed early again." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• [Comment]: I think there's a difference if the author or principal editors have participated in the discussion or not. Hard as it may be to imagine, not every Wikipedia editor logs in every day, or every few days (even with daily access to the Internet, which is far from universal). So a full 168-hour week seems like the absolute minimum reasonable time for all the relevant editors to learn about the proposed deletion of their work (unless there are urgent problems with BLP, copyright, libel, dangerous advice, etc.) They deserve a fair chance to salvage the article or at least to give a rationale. If, on the other hand, they've all participated in the discussion, and there's a very clear consensus one way or the other, then that's a different question. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree completely with Shakescene. Snowball closes are OK, but in any non-trivial case, discussion must make its course until the end. I can't understand why it is so hard to abide to a full 7-days term and why does it raise so much opposition. Guys, it is so difficult to wait a few hours more before closing? --Cyclopia^talk 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'll admit, I'm guilty of breaking this rule. But the reason why I do so is because if I don't, somebody else will. Closing/unclosing wars will not happen as Starblind said since this is a preventative, not punitive measure. If admins know they can be reverted for closing AfDs early, then they simply would stop doing it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment the rule does not need to be changed because it is already clear. We just need to warn, trout, block or desysop those that are not following it. (hopefully we don't have to get too far up this scale!) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support the proposal. I'm also going to look at changing the template so that it is more obvious what time it should expire and maybe hide the "delete" link when it is premature! I'll start a discussion on the template talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds a good idea. Perhaps the early delete button could place a big warning pop up, or could trout the user if they persisted! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please...

...check this article Allen, Dorset, as i marked it for deletion, and put the discussion about it, at the right place please. Thanks. 87.240.192.225 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion vs. AfD

Hi, I recently got into a discussion with an admin who deleted a page I'd created that was nominated for speedy deletion, and wanted some clarification on speedy deletion policy. I'll just post what I thought the point of it was here, and I can be told in what ways it's an incorrect interpretation[3]:

My understanding of the process was as follows: Speedy deletion is meant to weed out obvious spam and other problematic material. That is why it explicitly states notability is not required to pass a speedy delete. On wikipedia, articles require the work of multiple people - thus, to create an article, it may not be the best article, because it's not always the case that a single person can do so - I certainly don't have the time to. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. This article was only up for a few days - it did not have time to get updated by people with more time and knowledge than me. A great example of an article that went through this process is Darren Barrett. I want to contribute to wikipedia, but I have limited resources, and I contribute in what ways I can. In order for wikipedia to be a true collaborative resource, there needs the be a buffer for articles to pass speedy, but perhaps not pass AfD (or to pass after people become aware of the AfD and improve it). In this case, particularly, I am not capable of finding the sources in Japanese - that's why I created the article. I know that people are weary of creating article - for exactly this reason that they get deleted - and I have created articles in the past and been overjoyed that people have found stuff to contribute to them.

Thanks for any input. Tduk (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true that most speedy deletion criteria are meant to weed out obviously inappropriate pages that wouldn't stand a realistic chance in other processes. It is also possible for an article to avoid speedy deletion but get deleted through AfD or PROD, and indeed it's quite common (most articles nominated at AfD fall into this category for instance). To avoid deletion on notability or other grounds it is often sufficient to prove that an article can be improved without having to do the improvements. For example if an article is nominated for deletion because of lack of sources then linking to appropriate sources will prevent deletion and it isn't necessary to rewrite the article to incorporate information from the sources. You seem to be arguing that articles shouldn't be deleted because of the hypothetical possibility that someone might improve them in the future, even if it isn't demonstrated that such improvement is possible. If we followed this it would stop essentially everything from being deleted. Hut 8.5 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's not quite what I thought. I create an article if I think the subject is notable, even if I don't have the time or knowledge to write a good article. What's nice about AfD is that it gets the article some visibility so people can help improve the article - also, if the article just sits there, that will also happen. My problem is when an article that does insert importance (as the article that I'd written did, I thought) gets speedy deleted - just because I wasn't able to find references that the nominator thought were valid. Is this a valid way for speedy deletion to be used? I thought it was there just to weed out obviously problematic material. If an article is about a foreign language subject yet still provides some (maybe questionable) English sources, wouldn't that be enough to skip speedy and require either prod or AfD? Tduk (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The article in question was deleted under criterion A7, which applies if the article doesn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. If the article did in fact claim importance or significance then the speedy deletion was in error (I haven't actually read the article). References aren't required to pass A7, though importance or significance can be demonstrated through references. Hut 8.5 22:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There may be some disagreement over what qualifies as asserting importance. Is there any specific definition as to what this means? Tduk (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no concise specific universally applicable definition, no. The reviewing administrator does have some judgement. You can read the proper wording if you want. It's better to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines, because that will also protect you from most AfD and PROD nominations. Hut 8.5 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's essentially what the admin said too.. I think in this case it's the WP:SNOW argument, correct? What I'd hoped to do was to ask people with familiarity with Japanese to uncover some better sources, in Japanese. Given how it is now, and given that I don't have a lot of time, is there any recommended way to proceed here? I do think this subject should have an article on here, but lately I've been finding more and more of my articles being nominated for AfD (though they always pass) by the same user, so I'm not sure if this is a general trend if wikipedia, or what. Thanks for any suggestions. Tduk (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is less SNOW than the fact that A7 is designed to catch obviously non-important subjects (my band, my dog's groomer) and not run afoul of probably notable subjects without requiring a hundred provisos and addenda. A few easy ways to proceed are as follows. One, you can create the articles first in your userspace, expand them as you see fit given your time constraints and then move them to article-space when you think they are ready. If you don't feel you can or want to judge the readiness of your articles, you can submit them to the article creation wizard and get a 2nd opinion on their readiness for the mainspace. If you are having problems with one user nominating your articles, you may want to drop by that user's talk page and have a discussion with them about it. Maybe they are systematically misunderstanding your sources or a communication problem is arising otherwise. As for a general trend, I don't know. I can probably say that over the course of the last decade, inclusion standards have tightened, but I don't know how dramatic that trend is in the past few years. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not happy with any of those solutions - the reason being that the majority of the work goes upon me - it makes me have to be an organizer for that page. If you look at what happened at Darren Barrett, that is my ideal view of wikipedia - I should be able to say "this subject is notable, here is what I know about them", and other people should be able to find the article and add whatever they like. If this is not how it's supposed to work anymore, maybe I'm in the wrong place? Tduk (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with them either. The folks at AFC do good work, but I see its existence as contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. I offered them as solutions because if I suggested you carry on doing what you are doing you are likely to run into more of the same, unless you rescale your expectations for what a minimum threshold for a wikipedia article ought to be. I don't know if that means you are in the wrong place. I'd like to think it doesn't, but the culture has changed here since 2001. Again, I'd encourage you to look at what you feel the minimum work needed for a wikipedia article is and see how far that is from the expectations of others before you decide to go someplace else. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

On a pedantic note, you created Darren Barrett last month. That's hardly the wild heyday of yesteryears. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Darren Barrett was recent - all of these problems I have been encountering have started very recently. I was hoping it would happen for Kappa Tanabe too, but it got nominated for speedy (wrongly, I still think, since it did assert importance) a few days after I created it. I was pretty sure that we had two distinct policies specifically to avoid situations like this one. Anyway, thanks for the advice. Tduk (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

the issue was it was BLP that made claim but then tried to back it up with nothing but unreliable sources an Googling did not bring anything up either. 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok just so I'm sure I follow.. that above comment was apparently made by the nominator of the article. given his description of the article. Given that description (and not getting into any of the background here), was that article a better candidate for speedy deletion or AfD? Tduk (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone (anyone) please chime in here? Thanks :) Tduk (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) After reading the article I think it was a valid A7 speedy deletion. Merely playing with a notable artist at some point in the past isn't a claim of significance, and the sources the article cites are all either clearly unreliable things like myspace, twitter and forums or they barely mentioned the subject at all. Hut 8.5 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

General practice: clarity of deletion summaries

A recent AN thread has brought home to me the need to get some community consensus on deletion summaries. Please note: I'm not trying to make this about anybody's practices in particular. I'm hoping to get some conversation going about general best practice.

Per arbitration, administrators when using their tools are expected to communicate well, including "giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions." I believe that in the spirit of this, we need to be clear when deleting content to indicate by what practice or policy the content has been deleted. If an article is deleted at AfD, linking to the AfD is appropriate. If an article is deleted by PROD, noting that PROD was the procedure is appropriate (particularly as PROD deletions may be overturned on request). We have our handy pull-down deletion menu which can be used; for speedy deletions, these offer links to specific criteria. In the alternative, I think that we should require that language in edit summary should plainly communicate if not the number of the criterion, then at least its nature. This can avoid confusion for creators following the directions at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and for bystanders who may observe the deletion log.

In that AN discussion, it has come to my attention that some deletions may necessarily require obscurity. I'm not sure if there are any that require obscurity to the point that identifying them as "attack pages" or whichever criterion may be in action. But, if so, there should be at least enough clarity in description that subsequent viewers aren't left to scratch their heads in confusion about what might have been wrong.

Accordingly, I propose that the lead of this policy be altered to in some manner emphasize the need for clear community. For example, where it current says "All such actions are logged", another sentence could be added to read:

• "All such actions are logged. Administrators will provide deletion summaries that make plain the process or policy-based reason for deletion."

Of course, if you like the idea but don't like the language, I'm completely open to other suggestions. :) I will be traveling from tomorrow, but I hope we'll be able to come up with a good, workable practice to avoid confusion. (Not that I'm suggesting we'll finish today; I'm just hoping that there will be enough conversation to still come up with something after my return. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

While I do applaud the idea and intent, I dunno.

As noted in that discussion, I think there are times when security through obscurity is probably more appropriate than widespread transparency. It's part of why not everyone can see deleted revisions, and also why oversight exists.

That said, we may need a new CSD criteria (or maybe expanding/clarifying some existing ones).

Much of what was listed at that discussion seems speediable to me (with a few debateable - and I'm sure that they will : )

So some clarity could be helpful, I think. - jc37 19:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if we came up with a stock phrase for such deletions ("oversight"?), I think that would be helpful. If that's too unobscure for the purpose, we can come up with something else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please no, that is precisely what we are trying to avoid, making it obvious that oversightable material is in the the deletion. More particularly, if a request for suppression was made and turned down, we'd wind up having to suppress the edit summary in order to prevent disruption. Risker (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If we say we're softly oversighting through deletion, then that kinda defeats the purpose.

I do think that shout outs, and other "look at me, I added something to an article about myself, or someone I know, or about someone I made up" really should be autodelete on sight. (we revert it generally as "vandalism", but maybe a more specific criteria should be in place?) - jc37 19:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In theory, what kind of things require obfuscation? Knowing that might help come up with a code of some kind that makes plain to users that they aren't dealing with a rouge admin, while not...encouraging whatever it is that is meant to be discouraged. In terms of shout outs, most of them are deletable under WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A3 ("Hi, Bob!") etc. Blatant hoaxes are WP:CSD#G3. Personally, I think whichever of those applies is fine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, they do fall under various CSD criteria. But something unified and specific to this (as it's one of the most common types of "vandalism") might not be an incredibly bad idea. If worded right, it would also probably cover most of the "need to delete/oversight" concerns as well. - jc37 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to be clear. 90% of my deletions are based on banned user creations, and for those I point at the SPI as well as the G5 boilerplate. Oversighted removals are really the only exception that I can think of. In any other case, I think a clear pointer that anyone can follow in necessary. —Kww(talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we invent reasons to avoid giving precise deletion summaries. For instance, an attack page is an attack page and can be deleted as such, but a few admins insist that the deletion log obscure the reason for deletion otherwise someone could see the log and notice that someone, somewhere had made an attack page about another person. It's absurd, but nothing restraints us from absurdity. However these instances are rare. Most of the time the workhorse deletion processes (afd, prod, normal csd channels) have canned summaries and those work reasonably well--assuming we use the right canned summary! As for jc37's comments, they are largely correct, but I want to point out that the use of tools changes the nature of their use. The addition of revision delete has made us much more likely to delete individual entries in a page history and changed what sort of things we are willing to delete in a page history. This is both good and bad, but it pushes us toward secrecy and distrust, hence some of the problems listed above. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, if a normal attack page can be deleted with reason "attack page", then why not a page which is oversighted? In both cases the deletion log says exactly the same. Yoenit (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically talking about oversight, which is undertaken by a very small subset of admins and deals with (sometimes) much more serious stuff that often doesn't need to be hinted at in a deletion log. A general "attack page" should probably never be oversighted solely on the basis of being an attack page. Protonk (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed text. Aside from exceptional cases, everyone should be able to know why a particular article was deleted without having to ask. Like Protonk I think it is absurd to say that the very fact of an attack page is something that needs to be suppressed. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with the proposed text. However, I'll point out that the current "dropdown" menus, while providing links to various deletion reasons, are so generic that they are essentially useless in defining the actual reason for deletion. Therefore, I think administrators should be writing exactly why they're deleting the article, and shortcuts should be deprecated. Keep in mind that I look at an awful lot of deleted information, and I invariably find that a written summary, even one that is only a word or two, is more useful than "G3" or "R4" or whatever. Deletion criteria also change over time, so what fell into one category a few years back may now be in another category (as I have also discovered through my reviews of older deletions). I do, however, think that a link to any deletion discussion is helpful, and would encourage administrators to include them. Risker (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A log summary should not discuss material that is oversightable, but I see no harm in writing "contact privately to discuss" or "contact arbcom to discuss" or whatever would be applicable in whatever circumstance. It should be more clear than "the usual", unless the point of the deletion is WP:DENY. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose some text

I agree that there should never be an empty deletion summary. But what to put in that summary seems to be what's under discussion. I think MRG's proposed text is probably decently on the right track, but I'd like us to discuss alternatives. (I'm not immediately proposing an alternative, because doing so tends to squelch others' ideas, in that typically, just the initial idea in a thread gets the most discussion : ) - jc37 20:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I like MRG's wording, although I would clarify it to say something like

All such actions are logged. Administrators should provide the process or policy-based reason for the page's deletion in the log summary. In certain special cases (such as material requiring oversight or Arbitration Committee actions), the log summary should still specify the relevant policy, but not discuss the deleted material.

• I agree that an "attack page" or "BLP vio" deletion doesn't need to be summarized as something vague. I think that, if one needs to redact the deletion summary for a page, then it would be best to be less specific in the first place, if that makes any sense at all. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

By identifying the relevant policy, you've just identified that you think the page/edit is oversightable. Please do not do that: seriously, it attracts attention to the edit and, if the person applying that summary is incorrect and the request for suppression is turned down, we have to suppress the summary instead. Risker (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but what about for revision deletion or regular deletion? Protonk (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The instructions on the revision deletion dropdown screen say "If you are redacting prior to seeking oversight, please read the updated policy note first. Do not enter RD4 or other obvious wording as the reason. Forward the oversight request promptly." (The "updated policy note" refers to WP:REVDEL, and RD4 is oversightable material.) The same principles should apply to any other form of deletion. Risker (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The very narrow case of "deleted by an admin but not yet oversighted" is uninteresting to me. My question is, should we be encouraging or discouraging administrators from leaving informative deletion log entries when the content lies between what is obviously ok for publication (e.g. deleted due to an AfD) and what could be argued might not warrant scrutiny (some scandalous material, but not oversightable)? Protonk (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on Fetchcomms, what about something on these lines:

All such actions are logged. In almost all circumstances, administrators should provide the process or policy-based reason for the page's deletion in the log summary. In extraordinary situations which require privacy or otherwise make clear summary undesirable, the administrator may leave a note in deletion summary instead requesting private contact for clarification.

I'd still be happy if there were some sort of code, but at least this would make sure that ordinary deletion summaries are clear. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's better.

But I think it implies that WP:IAR deletions aren't appropriate. When in some cases they are.

I don't want to reduce this to un usability, but I also don't think it should be too prescriptive either.

How about:

• All such actions are logged. Administrators should provide an edit summary relevant to the action. It is recommended that the process (such an a specific deletion discussion or CSD criteria) or other policy-based reason for the page's deletion be noted in the log summary. Under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for the admin to note that the deleting admin or a certain body (such as the arbitration committee or the Wikimedia Foundation) be contacted before restoring (un-deleting) the page or revision in question.

(And I'd like some suggestions on more/better links : ) - jc37 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But WP:IAR is a policy. If an administrator is using it to delete content, I think that should be acknowledged. I prefer a stronger language than "It is recommended that" myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Then they should state their reason - not just paste a blank link to WP:IAR.

I think it's much more important that information be conveyed (if possible or appropriate), rather than just WP:ARGH!.

Stronger than "is recommended", but yet isn't mandating it - I would welcome suggestions. But it seems to me that "It is recommended" is what's typically used on policy pages in similar situations. - jc37 22:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's important that information be conveyed, but I would have thought "provide the process or policy-based reason" would make clear that what's needed is more than a link. Hmmm. "administrators should" is advisory, but I believe it is stronger than "It is recommended", and it has the advantage of not being in the passive voice. It's not really even as strong as the imperative already written at WP:CSD policy: "Make sure to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary". What about:

All such actions are logged. In almost all circumstances, administrators should note the process (such an a specific deletion discussion or CSD criteria) or other policy-based reason for the page's deletion in the log summary. In extraordinary situations which require privacy or otherwise make clear summary undesirable, the administrator may leave a note in deletion summary instead that the deleting admin or a certain body (such as the arbitration committee or the Wikimedia Foundation) be contacted before restoring (un-deleting) the page or revision in question.

That keeps the language somewhat stronger, in my reading, but still falls short of the imperative voice in CDS policy. It also keeps it clear that the "call me" line should not be invoked lightly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl's proposal. It appears self-evident to me that admins are required to provide an understandable reason for their deletion unless privacy or some other compelling reason prevents them from doing so. It's regrettable that we actually have to spell this out.  Sandstein  22:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It always bother's me that people whine about WP becoming a bureaucracy, and then persist in using so little common sense that we need to spell it out. "Use deletion summaries that people can understand, unless you have a really good reason not to, and don't use vague ones just because you can't be bothered to actually type" isn't something that actually should have to be spelled out.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's probably important to split the suggested content of the ES from the fact that they should supply an ES. And I also think noting that it should be relevant to the action is important as well.

I dunno about the second part. I agree that it shouldn't be used carelessly or arbitrarily. But since we typically suggest that the deleting admin be contacted before undeleting anyway, I don't think that it should be treated as such a big deal. (And using words like "extraordinary" seems to convey that to me.)

Anyway, for the first part, how about:

• All such actions are logged. Administrators should provide an edit summary relevant to the action. In particular, the process (such an a specific deletion discussion or CSD criteria) or other policy-based reason for the page's deletion should be noted in the log summary.

For the second:

• Under certain circumstances (such as situations concerning privacy or other possible situations in which a more transparent summary reason might not be desirable), it may be appropriate for the admin to note that the deleting admin or a certain body (such as the arbitration committee or the Wikimedia Foundation) be contacted before restoring (un-deleting) the page or revision in question,

Though I'm still not happy with even that. I think the parenthetical phrasing needs work. - jc37 22:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Overall comment: My gut says "common sense" should dictate what to say. However outside of clearly offensive summaries is there any policy that actually lays out a, for lack of a better term, "punishment" for not being specific? Or is that supposed to be part of this overall thread? I feel that admins for sure should be as specific as they can be is a summary. I agree that "using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries" should be a must across the board - not just in cases where a deletion has happened but where, for example, a deletion has been "declined" As I tend to deal with images the most I use the policies related to those the most, but I often see edit summaries that go against policy, even if they may be "accurate and descriptive" to the admin making the summary. Is It's still a nice photo of a historic building really a valid reason to decline a deletion? What part of the Wikipedia:Image use policy says that PD-self is both a source and a license? What policy says No source needed or Author and source don't matter? And what policy does You can't replace an image meant to depict a copyrighted work refer to?

For some reason I think I actually raised a concern about this three years ago in relation to deletion discussions and closures. I don't remember where I raised the question though. It had to do with simple "RESULT: {reason}" closures that said little else. That, to me, gave the impression of simply counting votes and not looking at all opinions. A variation of it ended up being discussed over at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators as well in 2009. That didn't have to do specifically with summaries but rather how the opinions were considered which would lead to how the summary was worded. Ironically there was actually another proposal made on this exact topic - it was suggested to add something like this to this guideline, as separate section titled "Deletion summaries". This is what Chick Bowen first suggested in February 2009:

The deletion dialog contains a space for a deletion summary. This summary should be concise and informative, explaining the reason for the deletion and linking to any relevant debate. It should not contain an explicit or implicit attack on any editor, nor should it make light of the page's creation or deletion. Admins should remember that the likeliest person to read a deletion summary is the creator or editor of the deleted page, and that such a person has put effort into the page and will not want to see that effort disparaged

After some discussion they shortened it to this:

The deletion dialog contains a space for a deletion summary. This summary should be concise and informative, explaining the reason for the deletion and linking to any relevant debate. Admins should keep in mind the No personal attacks policy.

It went nowhere after that. Martin had the final words by saying I think this is so obvious, it doesn't need to be written down. and than summed it up by saying Apart from that I think the guidelines for deletion summaries should be the same as for edit summaries: 'concise and informative, explaining the reason for the edit/deletion', as you've worded it above.

Maybe that still holds true. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Telling people to contact ArbCom/WMF/deleting admin would also raise interest in the deleted content, but I agree that it is less than just saying "oversight". Unfortunately, there's no clear guidance on what is OK to say, because that would mean everyone would know what it means. Perhaps just saying "administrators who leave deletion summaries that appear vague should be contacted privately to inquire about the reason for deletion" would suffice? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I fully agree that in the case of normal (non-oversight) deletions a clear policy based reason should be given each time. The admin interface makes this very simple to do and I'm not sure it is really a widespread problem. I respect that this is intended to be a general discussion, but if there is a particular admin who chronically leaves vague summaries that do not reference a particular policy that should probably be dealt with in a case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • a good many of my speedy deletions are pages created by schoolchildren to disparage or joke with each other. Calling them A10 gives the authors of them too much satisfaction. If I had to give the right reason for these, I'd feel obliged to honor Do No Harm by revision deleting the reasons, which would give yet more recognition. The relevant policy for these is DENY. I recognize that these cases are the exception, and that in general one should certainly give a clear reason. I note that many of our templated reason are very far from clear, such as A7 or G11. we know what we mean--new users do not. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)