Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Draft

message: This page is unlikely to become policy if it attempts to both change policy and combine pages at once.  Multiple archive pages of talk for the attempt to combine WP:V and WP:NOR reached the conclusion that if the new page were to become policy it would need to start by just being a better wording and structure for existing policy, not by changing policy at the same time.  I recommend this approach here.  
An attempt to change and combine at the same time will likely founder by getting opposition both from those that object to the change and from those that object to the combination.  GRBerry 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Not bad.  I think you may need to clarify one sentence... You start the second paragraph by saying: "Only administrators can perform deletion;"  This is true if we are talking about deleting an entire article... but in the previous paragraph you state:  "Reasons for deletion include ... content not attributed to a reliable source..."  Any editor can delete content that is not attributed.  Yes, they should raise the issue on the talk page first and flag the content with a  tag... but if there is no response to the request, the material can eventually be deleted without involving an admin.  I would ammend the sentence to read:
*"Only administrators can perform an article deletion;"
Thanks, Blueboar 13:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting content 

message: I believe that prod is never to be used for categories. AFAIK, categories may be speedily renamed (for various reasons), but not speedily deleted outside of CfD. (Though I believe they may be speedily deleted once listed at CfD.)
Due to the complication of categories (for example, they can't be "moved" like articles/project pages/templates/user pages/ talk pages/etc), perhaps merging categories to this page might be "too much"? Instead, having a single page dealing with category deletion, renaming, and merging might be a better idea, with a short paragraph and a link on this page? - jc37 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Do you think material from these pages should also be included here? --Random832 13:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:PROD]] 

message: The copyvio section needs work to account for ; explain that permission to use a work on wikipedia or for non-commercial use isn't good enough; etc. Wikipedia:Copyright Problems has some explanation of the current process. --Random832 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: There is currently a major discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#What is the role of deletion review about the appropriate role and decision standards at deletion review.  This was triggered in part because the ArbComm was unable to articulate the role of deletion review.  I've updated to come closer to the current status.  Undeletion policy may fluctuate slightly, this should be checked against that again when the page is closer to being ready to go live.  GRBerry 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Review 

message: Shouldn't "Editing" be listed first, as that should really be the preferred route? --Dweller 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to deletion 

message: Hi Radiant,
I prefer the format of this page over Wikipedia:Deletion policy and want to commend you for your effort to advance a more efficient design.  However, I have a few comments.
First, I would recommend against merging WP:PROD here.  Although WP:PROD is shorter than WP:AFD or WP:CSD, I think it should still have its own page:  although I feel the principles behind prodding are simple, it may not be so for new users.
Second, I would recommend against merging WP:CDP here.  The CDP process is unique from the article deletion process (e.g., no prodding, different closure mechanism, etc.) and I feel to merge it here while maintainig that distinction would unnecessarily lengthen this page.
Third, I also do not think WP:UNDEL should be completely merged here.  Although I agree that there is a degree of overlap between it and WP:DEL, WP:UNDEL provides unique information on image undeletions, restoring pages, and closing debates.
I feel that to include them would unnecesarily overcomplicate this page and partially defeat the purpose of a more concise WP:DEL.  If you are not fundamentally opposed to these three suggestions (essentially to limit the scale of this project to producing a more efficient and clearer WP:DEL page, without fully merging other pages into it), I would like to see this page (or, rather, a slightly revised version of it) replace WP:DEL.  Please let me know and I may be tempted to make a tweak or two myself ;)
Cheers, Black Falcon 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm not suggesting that WP:UNDEL or WP:CDP not ever be merged, just that they not be merged for now until a design for WP:DEL is agreed on.  -- Black Falcon 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with all three of the above suggestions. DGG 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length versus depth 

message: As the edit summary of this edit says, this proposed merged version of the policy does not contain information that is in the original policies. Uncle G 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing information by losing the tables 

message: I just came here through the talk page of WP:PROG, and the first thing I noticed was that the page is uncategorized.  This is rather embarrassing. —davidh.oz.au 11:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing category 

message: Every deletion process uses daily log pages, and put the closing template ( etc) under the section header, except
* DRV uses a different style of closing template that requires parameters
* AFD / MFD use a log page per nominated page, and put the closing template above the section header
* IFD does not appear to use closing templates period.
>Radiant< 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference 

message: At WP:DEL. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now live