Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Streamline policy

The policy and the process are complex and messy. This leaves many pages which should be deleted hanging around. Palosirkka (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion without discussion?

Does policy allow an administrator to delete a user's talk page before any community discussion at one of the deletion discussions? 2600:1011:B007:4177:1363:403E:FE89:4747 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. There are instances in which the admin would be permitted to delete, and instances in which they would not. Have you tried asking the admin in question privately to see what the reason for deletion was? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The approved reasons for which a page made be deleted without discussion are located at WP:CSD. If it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, the the admin probably should not have deleted it. Monty₈₄₅ 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. What is there to deter an admistrator from violating policy?70.199.198.6 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My questions are about policy, not about any particular administrator or instance of deletion.70.199.198.6 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

First, after contacting the deleting admin, if there is a good faith dispute over whether the article was eligible for deletion, the deleting admin should probably just undelete the article, and list it for discussion at the appropriate deletion venue to diffuse the issue. Failing that the next step would be raising the issue at WP:AN/I or WP:DRV, where the community would review the situation and decide if there is consensus to overturn the deletion. If after being overturned multiple times, the admin continues to ignore deletion policy despite being corrected by the community, it may eventually escalate to a WP:RFC/U on the admin's conduct and then go to an Arbitration case, where WP:ARBCOM has the authority to desysop recalcitrant admins. Note that Arbcom rarely desysops, only doing so in the most extreme cases. Monty₈₄₅ 21:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Without a specific example to look at, all anyone can say is to look at the CSD criteria. However, in practice other pages may be deleted without discussion, and nobody will bat an eye, depending on the individual situation. This is particularly the case with user pages, where there are many issues that can arise. This is why it's important to ask the admin personally, so they can indicate their reasoning. Administrators have always had a great deal of discretion in deciding what to delete; the CSD criteria capture some, but not all, of that discretion. Remember that our policies are only descriptive, not prescriptive, and so there will always be things that are not covered by the policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't typical to delete a user talk page, but it's not like there's some grand taboo against it, either. Arguably one of Wikipedia's most important policies is Ignore All Rules, so unless the talk page deletion was done in outrageously poor faith or it contained information vital to the encyclopedia (unlikely on a user talk page) then it's probably no big deal. Without knowing more about the situation, if there is one, there's not much else to say. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP user page was part of a IP range blocked for trolling, per community consensus at WP:ANI. The talk page itself was deleted by me at User talk:150.135.161.45, as it was simply an attack page ranting about being blocked on Commons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a valid deletion to me. Talk space isn't rant space and that's extra true for IPs, as the next person to use that IP isn't necessarily going to agree with the rant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What's to deter an administrator from improperly deleting a page and then thwarting AN/I and DRV review by blocking the user and simply claiming that the deleted content was "ranting" or an "attack"? 206.207.225.20 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Short answer is that such users can use the Unblock Ticket Request System. All admins have access to reviewing the content of a deleted page, which is why I linked the talk page above, for their easy review of the actual contents.

However, in this specific case, you were blocked by community consensus in an ANI discussion. Continued evading of the block by using different IPs is called sock puppetry, and can also be blocked. The way I see it, you have two options: either assume the entire Wikipedia community is in some great conspiracy against you; or accept that your behavior is not compatible to working collaboratively on Wikipedia. If you choose to accept the latter, after your block expires you can then work on modifying your behavior to be less disruptive, or you could choose to move to other websites that may be more compatible with your editing style. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides, there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material and then craft an elaborate conspiracy to try to cover it up. Admins aren't paid or otherwise rewarded for deleting pages, so there really isn't anything to gain. And an IP talk page would rarely be visited anyway. The moral of the story seems to be that if you stumble across the meaning of life or the cure for cancer or something the world simply must know, an IP talk page on Wikipedia is an exceptionally poor place to try to get the word out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the question above, "What's to deter an administrator from improperly deleting...." Who used the term "conspiracy"? Why turn this into a discussion about "conspiracies"? If "there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material", then why has the Wikipedia Foundation adopted policies prohibiting administrators from deleting without community-discussion? 64.134.231.29 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has adopted no such policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The deletion policy states: "Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion". (That "if" clearly means "only if".) The "criteria for speedy deletion" policy states: "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion". If "there is absolutely no motive for an admin to delete a talk page with no objectionable material", then why has the Wikimedia Foundation adopted policies generally prohibiting administrators from deleting without community-discussion? 150.135.48.200 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You obviously acknowledge that the talk page was not appropriate, given your edit at WP:NPA to forum shop for other opinions.

Given that fact, and your continued WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:IDHT behavior here, it's simply re-inforcing the appropriateness of the community sanctioned block from WP:ANI which you continue to evade with additional IP addresses. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note also the catchall WP:IAR. While its rarely going to be supported to IAR delete something, it can happen. Monty₈₄₅ 18:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

TAP Bot: AfD Bot Task

I previously posted this on WT:AFD, but without much response. I'm wondering if this would be acceptable, but, I've had an idea for an AfD bot. It's quite a simple task: relisting AfDs which have not been commented on. The bot will ignore previous relists and DELSORTs, and only relist after seven days. Some AfDs are left there, sometimes longer than 7 days without being commented on. I can see a benefit in having a bot to do this, so no AfD is lost in the dark. Some example AfDs can be seen at this page. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

At present the reason for deletion,

• Articles for which thorough attempts to find [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] to [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verify]] them have failed

links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which doesn't mention third-party sources. I propose linking it to the core policy page:

• Articles for which thorough attempts to find [[WP:SOURCES|reliable sources]] to verify them have failed

RockMagnetist (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you are proposing. The second link in the current wording is already to our verifiability policy, which is the target of the WP:SOURCES redirect, so the proposed wording would link twice to the same place. I would add that the "third-party"-ness of sources is more a concern of notability guidelines, which are covered by the preceding criterion, than of verifiability policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources link is more visible, and it's the one that I followed when I encountered this entry. Yes, generally third party sources would be covered in notability guidelines, but not always: By criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), an academic who is a subject of an article can be considered notable if he/she has highly cited publications. However, there are generally not reliable sources for citations (for example, Google Scholar links are not allowed). Then, the keep/delete question boils down to: Is there anything interesting that can be said about that person that is verifiable? Besides, third party sources are an explicit part of the verifiability policy, so it is directly relevant to this criterion for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:No content on page listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:No content on page. Since you had some involvement with the Template:No content on page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 70.24.247.127 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On no no please do not delet best english wiki article Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi while further improve it Sir ...Thanks

Oh dear please add Prof Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi's Photo(image) with the best english wiki article Prof Dr Syed Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi,the greatest scholor and senior most educationalist,poet,writer and teacher also. Oh ..Opps...PLease do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi best article from eng wiki .PLease further improve this best article.Prof Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is a world wide most famous literary personality with respect to arts and culture.Don't delete his page while you can further improve this awesome english wiki article , which has seen by millions people by wikipedia.Wikipedia managers like mostly Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi and Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is a running english wiki article. O.K Thanks --118.103.230.43 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is more of the deletion policy and we do not address specific articles or decisions here. Your best bet is to make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi which I think you already did. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

require notification

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: No consensus to require notification of anyone, original creator or otherwise of any proposed deletion. This topic is also listed at Perennial proposals. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

---

The deletion policy should be changed to require (as in must be done) the nominator to notify the original creator. (listed on village pump) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't already a requirement? I suppose not. Hunh. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We should strive to ensure we communicate the importance of notification to people involved in CSD/PROD/AFD, however, there are times where notification is unnecessary and I for one would prefer for it to remain an option (in Twinkle of course, since manual tagging implies the tagger has to go through the extra notification step). Examples of this would include multiple articles being lumped into a single AFD (which Twinkle cannot handle anyway), PROD endorsements and situations where the editor who created the article is not necessarily the most appropriate notification target because there are more involved editors with significant contributions, and situations where a disruptive editor has created multiple problem articles that are being speedied. If anything I would support an automated solution implemented through MediaWiki (certain tags added to an article would trigger automatic notifications or something), but I'm guessing that would get complicated. As it stands now, not handling notification responsibly is already frowned upon - I don't think it's something that needs to be etched into the policy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the specific proposal, but approve of the general idea. In a lot of cases "original creator" doesn't mean much — it's some guy who put in a two-line stub back in 2005 and hasn't edited in years. Or there's the disruptive-editor scenario mentioned above. But certainly, no one should try to "sneak" an AfD by a major contributor who's still active and in good standing — that point could maybe be emphasized strongly. --Trovatore (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose For similar reasons as mentioned above, while it is always a good idea to notify contributors to an article when it is posted for deletion. It is IMPOSSIBLE to ALWAYS notify the the original creator, at best you can leave a note on the talk page of the account. Additionally unless you notify everyone involved in the article you cross the line of WP:OWN, the original contributor has no more vestment in the article then any other contributor. Having proposed many articles for deletion, and notified many contributors, I can tell you that most don't care. Many of the contributions are minor procedural edits (one of many). Any one who is vested in an subject can add the article to a watch list, and be made instantly aware when the article is proposed for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments thus far. Frankly, I don't care what is "frowned upon" or what one should "strive for" or what "would be nice." This is a policy-page, and I care about policy and blockable offenses. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I replied below in the new subsection #Why? below to the theory that "unless you notify everyone involved in the article you cross the line of WP:OWN, the original contributor has no more vestment in the article then any other contributor" proposed by JeepdaySock . Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 02:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about every form of deletion here? Because, frankly, I would not like to have to notify the creator of an attack page in case of speedy deletion (although even that is done very frequently). Lectonar (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about every kind of deletion. There are good reasons to deliberately choose not to notify anybody; after all, when I nominate something for deletion (in whichever way) I want it gone. That's my goal. Why would I do something that impedes my own goals? Thus far, I assumed that I was required to notify the creator, and maybe I should for ethical reasons, or whatever you want to call it. I was surprised to find that nobody is required to do so. Then I searched the archives and found nobody ever raised the issue. So I'm raising it now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pop quiz. A long term abuser, well known for hounding any editor that goes near him, creates yet another sockpuppet and writes an article advertising child pornography. 30 seconds later, it is (quite rightly) tagged {{db-attack}}. Would you notify the page's creator? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I love pop-quizzes! Answer: Thus far (see above) I thought I had to notify the creator and therefore did, even though I'd rather not. There has never been a discussion on this. SO... if the outcome of this discussion is a clear "No you don't have to. Some might think you're asshole for not doing it, but that's about it", then in the future I won't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this specific proposal. When putting an article up to AfD, you should try and notify all interested parties, but your definition of "interested" may not match mine, so it can't be enforced. If an article's creator hasn't edited in the past year, I don't bother notifying them about an AfD. But I do notify anyone who's made a substantial change (whether adding or removing, doesn't matter) to it. Notifying on project pages is a good practice as well, if you can determine that the project is still active. In short - don't rely on Twinkle to do your work for you! Come to think of it, if you can't make a reasonable assumption an editor checks their messages at least once a week, an AfD notice is sort of pointless anyway as it won't get acted on - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacWise being a recent example where the article's creator didn't !vote on the AfD but commented on the AFC help desk this week, two months after the AfD closed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, that's incompatible with WP:OWN. The creator has no more "rights" to a page than any other editor.  Sandstein  12:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ok, there may be always reasons for wanting an article gone, but not everyone has an agenda here. And some reasons for wanting things gone may even be altruistic. Notifying the creator of an attack page is feeding a troll. I am all for encouraging users to notify and explain about everything, but there is no need to make this a requirement. Lectonar (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Even without this specific bit of policy set in stone, the original author(s) of an article, if not notified, can simply hop off to WP:DRV and complain they were never given forewarning of the deletion nor an opportunity to fix the article. On the other hand, if they were notified, then all of the bases are covered. By implementing this as mandatory policy, a potential runaround trying to right wrongs is spared. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could you have a look at the pop-quiz I mentioned above, and comment on it? How do you think our long term abuser would fare given the opportunity to assert loudly that it was "wrong" to speedy his abusive advert? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not very well per WP:DUCK.--WaltCip (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, so just speedy, block, ignore. No need for a "mandatory" deletion message. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There are circumstances where the page is a throwaway, eg spam from a spambot, or clearly inappropriate attacks or pure advertisements where the contributor knows already they will go. however I disagree with FreeRangeFrog's idea of not notifying about multiple articles. These sort of nominations have a much bigger impact, and can cause far more damage, so failing to notify is against this policy. Nominators that fail to notify could be warned. Also people that unilaterally delete pages, should also carefully consider whether notification is needed. For A7's or people's first article it would be useful and educational to notify. However I don't see that this justifies saying that we must notify in all circumstances.
• Oppose while it is usually good practice to notify the creator of a page if it is nominated for deletion, there are plenty of cases where it isn't necessary or desirable, including housekeeping deletions, deletion of vandalism, and cases where the creator is blocked or is an unregistered user. Deciding whether or not to notify the creator ought to be up to individual discretion, not an absolute rule. Requiring notification would also raise the prospect of having deletions overturned simply because the creator wasn't notified. Hut 8.5 21:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this policy change because I don't think it solves a real problem. I'm not terribly worried that it conflicts with OWN (because it doesn't materially, if you think about it). I'd be tempted to support it out of spite if I wasn't nearly 100% sure that once the change was in place we'd have a new perennial proposal to make the notification system more elaborate or intrusive. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mandating/requiring. support encouraging. For a;; sorts of reasons, including those already mentioned. Any chance some helpful person would make a link box on this page for all the past discussions on this? Consensus can change, of course, but it would be nice if the proposer were to have the opportunity to read at least a couple of the past discussions on this, and maybe such a link box would be helpful? - jc37 04:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There were past discussions? I didn't find any... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There have been many past discussions. Unfortunately deletion policy is fragmented across different policy, project and process pages. So there are discussions at WT:CSD, WT:AFD, etc. And every few months a deletion review will be requested on the basis that the creator wasn't notified. There may have also been discussion on the village pump. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, then it's about time to gather them and put a link into the box above; 'cause that's the first place I looked and there wasn't a link. I certainly wouldn't have started this had I had a place to read up on convincing past arguments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 02:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too instruction creepy, and notifying trolls their attack/hoax/vandalism page will be deleted is contrary to WP:DENY. It should be strongly encouraged for pages created in good faith, but not required. - filelakeshoe 14:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Which to me is an argument that I should support this proposal. Using DENY to refuse to notify people that their page is being deleted because someone believes their page is a hoax is likely to do a lot of damage to innocent editors while hurting vandals minimally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While I (and many, many other users) pretty much always notify automatically using twinkle, there are some circumstances, such as multiple deletion noms of articles created by users who are indef blocked or retired, where it is not neeeded or the least bit helpful to notify. Also, the whole OWN thing, the person who created a page may have never even looked at it again, it isn't their property. And, as if that weren't enough, the giant red notice at the top of the article serves to inform anyone who is actually watching the article and has an active interest in its fate. Its a good idea to check WP:PEREN before making such proposals. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because recently when I marked an aritcle for deletion, Twinkle automatically notified the user who created it. He had nothing to do with the content I thought needed to go, he created the page as a redirect some time ago and hadn't made a single edit to it since. Rather than require a notification to the creator of the article, the policy should strongly suggest notifying recent/regular contributors. I ended up unintentionally calling User:Necrothesp a vandal. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:OWN and per what's the use? Today, I nominated Loretta Scott Crew for deletion. The article creator made two edits in 2009, and then nothing. What's the benefit of dropping a note there? I believe that it should be mandatory for ProDs, because they don't get the scrutiny AfDs get, nor the rather blatant nature CSDs have. But for AfDs and CSDs, I don't see the need. For non-article space discussions, of course normally a note should be dropped when you start a discussion about things in user space, because there you do have an acceptable OWN aspect. Fram (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I approve of the general idea. If/when it becomes possible to automatically get (at least) most of the *major* contributors warned, then fine - Nabla (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article creator, because of pride, or a vested interest, or some other reason, may want to stridently defend the article. This wastes a lot of time and clouds the genuine discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Qualified support – I strongly disagree with the idea of intentionally avoiding notification, in order to avoid "wasting a lot of time" on discussion "clouded" by a "proud" creator "stridently defending the article." Give creators the opportunity to defend their articles—but how well they defend them is a matter of judgement. Time need not be wasted putting much effort in answering weak reasons for keeping an article. However, the requirement to notify should be limited to editors in good standing who are not blocked or retired, and have edited Wikipedia within the last, say six months or year. I see no reason to require that the nominator make the notification, any other editor favoring deletion could just as easily do it, and ideally, this is probably a notice that could be posted by a bot. The only requirement should be that the closer verify that any minimally active in good standing creators are notified prior to closing in favor of deletion, and in this regard, deletion supporters should be motivated to post appropriate notice. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support softer wording. "The article creator should usually be notified". I'd also like to advice all: If you want to nominate a page for deletion, it is easier to install WP:TWINKLE and then use TWINKLE to do it, than to follow the AfD nomination instructions. When using TWINKLE, check the "advise creator" button, unless there's a reason not to". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Is there some rationale that does not conflict with WP:OWN as to why the original creator must be notified? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The original creator is treated differently from other contributors in other circumstances: he can't for one be an anonymous user (IPer) whereas any subsequent contributor can; if the page is put up for speedy deletion and its obvious the patroller had just been trigger happy and the page actually has no reason to be treated that way any editor can remove that notice except the original creator. (Something like that happened to me recently: Henry Greenway). Furthermore any contribution can be reverted by any other editor if there is a problem with it, but only admins can "revert" a creation, in other words delete a page (including in the user space of a registered user btw?). All this shows that the original creator has rightly another status among editors of the page (while not owning it in any way of course). Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 02:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the first contributor can be an IP Ford_Motor_Company. Though it is now prohibeted on new articles. In this case it is realistically impossible to contact the orginal contributor of the article Ford_Motor_Company. Your argument about speedy deletion does provide rational for special status for orginal contributer, but only in the case of speedy (which would prettty much exclude the Ford article and any like it). I would agree that in the case of speedy the first contributor should be notified. I can't imagine a rational for not notifing them and anyone in the history for a speedy, nor can image an rational for not notifing everyone in the history for a speedy. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:CSD I would like to modify my statement above slightly. G6, G8, C1 & C2 all have the potential to have occurred through the natural evolution of standard process. The others are so distinctly outside of WP:WWI that any editor (original or not) who edited the article without posting a speeding, should be notified. So other then G6, G8, C1 & C2, I can not image an rational for not notifying everyone in the page history for a speedy. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, because I can't imagine why it would be helpful to force a user to notify another user who just added a tag or a category to an article that they may not have noticed that it should be speedy deleted. This happens all the time, so until you are also able to require every single person who edits anything to be intimately familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion this is a pointless idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Providing notice provides education. Additionally in the rare (or not so rare) instance that a user tags an article for speed incorrectly, providing notice to all editors provides different educational options. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Convenient Example. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So, a user creates a terrible article. somebody comes along and adds some tags to it, say {{refimprove}} and {{orphan}}. Another user comes a long a few minutes later and adds Category:Living people. Finally, a user with some clue arrives, sees that the article is a clear candidate for speedy deletion, adds the tag and is then required by policy to inform not only the person who created it but the two drive-by users who added tags and categories because it is also now their mandate to educate other users whether they want to or not? Look, policy is supposed to reflect best practices, not dictate them. Since the community does not do this it is not reflecting the community's will to try and impose it by force. I assume since this would be policy there would be consequences for those users who refuse to do it? How would that work? "You failed to inform a user zipping around with automated tools that one of the hundred and fifty articles they tagged today was a candidate for speedy deletion, you are blocked for a week." Yea, brilliant idea. Good luck with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no automagical way to determine which of the contributors actually has a stake or even interest in the article. You'd have to go through each edit and determine if someone was just adding a few categories or their edits were substantial. Sounds like a very subjective exercise. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Beeblebrox, I concur that a policy is out of consideration for notification, never suggested it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that a PEREN exists and considering that most who oppose this policy change, agree that often (but not always) some attemp at identifing and notifing users who might have an intrest should be attempted. Should we consider adding a best practice notice about notification on the policy page? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the very fact that it was so strongly opposed shows there's no support for it. Don't try to sneak a decisively failed policy in the back door as a "best practice". Nobody here WP:OWNs any article. Ultimately, it's up to editors to watchlist articles they consider important. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Which means if you don't check Wikipedia at the very least weekly, you may have an article you put a lot of work into disappear from under you. Casual users, even frequent users, can find their work disappear without warning. Mind you, watchlisting the article is not good enough, because you only see the last change on your watchlist. I have about 20 articles on my watchlist that had changes in the last 3 days that I haven't checked yet; and you want to make it my own damn fault if one of those has changes hiding a prod or AfD notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As I think is pretty clearly expressed above, many users find that such a requirement would conflict with WP:OWN. If you want to talk about fault, it is not the fault of the person making a perfectly valid deletion nomination that somebody who might disagree might not happen to be paying attention during the week the nomination is open. What's next, requiring emails notification "just in case"? Anyway it really doesn't matter, the proposal was clearly rejected, for about the fifteenth time. while it is possible consensus on this issue may change at some point it clearly has not done so yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Might not happen to be paying attention". That is, if you don't want Wikipedia to delete your work, you should check it on a regular basis, because the work of anyone who actually might actually not check Wikipedia in a week period is obviously not worth anything. And this does provide email notifications for all the people who get them for people who post to their talk page, which you would have on if you would care about something like this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If the thought of someone deleting or editing "your" work gives you the cold shivers, you shouldn't submit it to Wikipedia or any collaboratively-editable wiki. Period. Put it on your blog, your website, or a private wiki you own instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of Reasons for deletion 7.

Currently reads:

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

Proposal: 7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources in languages relevant to the subject to verify them have failed" per WP:RSUW In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the relevant text in the essay you referenced in support:

Sources may still have systemic bias problems. If you use only English sources, you will probably represent the points of views of people in English-speaking countries disproportionately. Even if you search for foreign language sources, the opinions of people in countries with low literacy rates will probably still be underrepresented. Using foreign language sources can make fact-checking difficult, as many Wikipedians will not understand them. If you can, find a professional translation.

Ideally, on international topics (like food) we should represent all countries or regions in proportion to their population. In practice, finding sources from foreign countries where the main language is not English, or where there is a low literacy rate, may be difficult. Once foreign sources are found, it may be difficult to evaluate their reputability, since those of us from English-speaking countries are unlikely to be familiar with the publications of non-English-speaking countries.

Do you support all that? I'm a bit unclear as to why you want to make this change, and what effect the change would have in practice. What if we have reliable sources in languages not relevant to the subject, but cannot find reliable sources in languages that are relevant to the subject. Your change implies to me that we would now delete an article that formerly could be retained.

Here's an example: Alexander Aksinin. The languages "relevant to the subject" are Russian and Ukrainian, I think. The article has these foreign-language sources, which I can't verify because I can't translate them adequately. Do we keep this article anyway because we assume that it has reliable sources relevant to the subject, allowing that some English Wikipedia editors can read these languages and thus verify the sources? Now, for sake of analyzing the proposal, assume that we can't find any Russian or Ukrainian sources, but we do have a reliable English-language source which verifies the article. Do we delete it, just because we can't find any Russian/Ukrainian sources to confirm the English source? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would not support this. As written it allows an article about a subject associated with a non-English speaking country to be deleted if there are no sources in the language of the subject, even if English sources are available. A desire to avoid systematic bias doesn't justify deleting material on topics Wikipedia has a tendency to cover more. Wikipedia:Systemic bias notes that an American woman who was thought to have been kidnapped has far more coverage than some African heads of government, but that isn't an argument for deleting the article about the American woman, only for expanding our coverage of African politics. Hut 8.5 16:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusing/Conflicting wording

On this page under proposed deletion it states the following.
"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases, the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page."

Although on the tag it says the following.
"Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed."

The two sections I have highlighted in bold seem to be conflicting with each other, so what is the correct way and can these two sections be unified to avoid confusion/conflict. Mark999 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing Template:Article for deletion with Template:Proposed deletion. Two different deletion processes. -- œ^™ 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, what OE said. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)