Wikipedia talk:Soft deletion (failed proposal)

message: One problem I can see with this is that having the article be a redirect makes it quite difficult for someone not familiar with Wikipedia to work out how to recreate it. I know the template includes instructions, but it's still likely to confuse people. I'm not sure if a redlink or a soft delete is more likely to encourage people to produce a good article. --Tango 22:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a feature, not a bug.  If someone is too new to be able to work this out, do we trust their judgment on what's appropriate to recreate?  I don't. Friday (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Friday, the barriers in this case are more intellectual than technical. Probably a good thing to require some reading before recreation. :-) --Eloquence* 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with the idea that barriers of complexity, non-transparency, and non-newbie-friendliness are a good thing.  Most of the supposedly non-notable content that gets deleted without a fight (for example, through Proposed Deletion) simply doesn't have anyone interested in it besides the creator.  If another new user comes along and in good faith wonders why Wikipedia doesn't have an article, or how to recreate the deleted article, there is a good chance that the problem was with the deleted article itself rather than the encyclopedicity of the topic.  Having new users jump through technical/intellectual hoops does nothing to deter bad editing, only unformatted, newbie-style editing (which we deal with pretty efficiently).--ragesoss 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've seen quite a few examples of fairly detailed articles about comics, open source programs, websites, and so forth deleted completely on notability grounds (relying only on primary sources). In those cases, an awful lot of pre-existing work gets wiped out by hard deletion, whereas soft deletion would make the history transparent to all and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. I suppose that in the cases where the article is a stub to begin with, it makes re-creation a little more difficult. If that does become a problem, the policy could be altered to not apply to such pages.--Eloquence* 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that keeping the deleted versions available is often a good thing.  It's just the idea that a usability barrier is "a feature, not a bug", that I object to.--ragesoss 01:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please take a look at Template:Soft deleted -- the clearer we can make it the better.--Eloquence* 05:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect hinders recreation 

message: Some people who don't use Wikipedia very often might be kind of confused when they came to a deleted page, if this system were adopted. I think it's an excellent idea, but we should make sure that it's very clear for casual readers. Maybe trying to go to a soft deleted article could bring up a page that explains that the article has been deleted but links to the history and discussion, rather than just redirecting to the deletion discussion. --Ketsuekigata 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's mostly a matter of wording Template:Soft deleted as clearly as possible.--Eloquence* 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW I did this in practice for a while a year or so ago using Template:XD7.  Had no real problems.  Friday (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Confusion 

message: The proposal assumes that there are cases in which the subject should be included, but the current article should not. But, except for when G11 applies, that is not (or should not be) the case. When cleanup is possible, it should always be preferred over deletion, except in unsourced BLPs. And soft deletion is still deletion. -Amarkov moo! 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - this is for the cases where evidence that the subject should be included has not been established, one way or another, but where common sense dictates that it could be found. Typical examples include web comics, Internet phenomena, online games, etc. It is not intended to modify existing deletion policy only inasmuch as the outcome of some deletions would be a soft, rather than hard, deletion.--Eloquence* 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God, please spare us. 129.98.212.51 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Amarkov. Except in G11 cases, an article that can be saved should be saved. When someone votes in AfD to delete an article, that person is saying that the article should not exist in Wikipedia whether it is a good article or a bad article. It is possible that many people vote in AfDs without considering this (me sometimes as well), but in theory, a badly written article that has potential of being a worthy article should not be deleted. Captain panda 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not so much about those that have the known potential, but those that have an undetermined potential (lack of sources one way or another).--Eloquence* 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If nobody can find sources in the five days of AfD, it is a reasonable assumption that no sources exist, so there is little reason to allow it to be recreated easily. And if common sense truly dictates that sources exist, then it shouldn't be deleted at all, just sourced. -Amarkov moo! 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a firm believer that an article should have the sources added when it is created. If a creator can't even go that far when they bother to create an article, why keep it? In essence, the creator is saying, "Here, I value this subject enough to get other people to write about it and research it, but not enough to do it myself. I can't be bothered to show it is true either." I would love to have this as an option for those articles. Slavlin 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure how I feel on that, but I'm not sure why it matters. It might if nobody looked for sources in an AfD, but since people do, it's still a reasonable assumption that no sources exist if none are found. Or am I missing something? -Amarkov moo! 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From this official policy, it is NOT the responsibility of the nominator of an AfD to look for sources. Looking at the "in a nutshell" portion, you can see that "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." so I think a policy like this would cover those situations where a consensus can't seem to be reached, but still no one bothers to source the article. Slavlin 07:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This relies on a false assumption 

message: This appears to be simply another attempt to implement Wikipedia:Deletion by Page Blanking (more commonly known by its weasel name), not to mention earlier rejected Wikipedia:Zap. I have not seen a demonstrated practical need for this. >Radiant< 11:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I though that, I just couldn't remember where. Has Erik missed these debates? I'm really puzzled as to why this has suddenly been put forward just now.--Docg 11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the system described here is different both in implementation and suggested use. Emphatically, it is not intended to be used outside the AfD process.--Eloquence* 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is precisely why it doesn't help the main problem, which is the stress on the deletion infrastructure. We've been over this ground so many times.--Docg 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, nobody I know has ever suggested it should be the only means of deletion.  Hard deletion makes sense in those cases.  I'm not suggesting making it a "process" thing at all.  Just a technical option when deleting.  Admins who don't know anything about it would continue to do regular hard deletions, no harm done.  Friday (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've outlined several disadvantages above, which have not been addressed. OTOH, I see no real advantages to this.--Docg 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we soft delete this page?  Hehe, I'm just trolling. 69.201.182.76 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Soft deletion also doesn't make sense when users can link to an old diff to show the page the way they want to. -- nae'blis 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Been there, done that 

message: Is this a separate AfD !vote (Soft delete) or something that any user can use in lieu of admin deletion? Nifboy 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the latter, under the guidelines established through the policy (when not to soft delete).--Eloquence* 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So this would become, in some sense, the "default" outcome of a delete AfD, unless an admin stepped in under policy and did admin deletion? Nifboy 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignoring, for a moment, the why; how? 

message: I'm going to reword the proposal to include the PROD process as well as AfD; even more than with AfD, a lot of what gets deleted through proposed deletion looks accurate but simply has no sourcing and no one willing to put in the work to bring it up to an acceptable standard.--ragesoss 23:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you've suggested it, is there a reason not to make all PRODs some type of soft deletion? -Amarkov moo! 23:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Many PRODs are dictionary definitions, personal essays, and other things that we never want an article on (many of might have been speedily deleted if there weren't so many criteria to sort through and if PROD wasn't so easy).--ragesoss 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the page I created as a PROD redirect destination: Wikipedia:Soft deletion/Proposed deletion.  It could use more refinement--ragesoss 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If we never want an article on something in the first place, there's no point in "soft deleting". >Radiant< 08:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extension to Proposed Deletion

message: Redirecting to project pages from article space? Absolutely not – Gurch 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful if we had a magic word the prevented articles from appearing as Random articles.  That way instead of redirecting, pages could simply be soft deleted by replacing the page with a template explaining the situation (with a link to the AfD where appropriate).  Of course, cross-namespace redirects are hardly unprecedented (I don't know how many exist, but there are at least a handful) and the attempt to get rid of them via policy (WP:CNR) was unsuccessful.--ragesoss 05:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really bad idea in many many ways. Waste of server space, for one. Plus I agree with Gurch. It would be cross-namespace redirects. A big no no. I just don't think we have enough deleted articles that are savable enough to have this. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Browse through the PRODs that are 1 day from expiring.  Lots of them (half I would estimate) are factual articles that have no obvious problems except lack of sources/assertion of notability, and for many of them, more sources probably exist but no one can be bothered to track them down.  As for server space, deleted articles are still saved.  Cross-namespace redirects aren't a big no-no, just a medium one.  Little details like redirects can be dealt with, either technically or by convention; that shouldn't obscure the relevant policy question of soft deletion. --ragesoss 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Server space: this is a false argument, and has been for many years. Deletion does not remove the articles from the server. In almost all cases, every version remains forever.  The real argument against this is confusion. Space in human craniums seems to be a bigger problem.  DGG 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that comment directed to me, DGG? Because I didn't mention anything about server space in my argument. ♠PMC♠ 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 

message: It should be simple enough to retroactively look at what seems to be a key question:
How many articles that are deleted are later successfully recreated. I know some are salted but can you demonstrate that this would actually accomplish something downstream? This may be much ado about nothing. JodyB talk 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "How many articles that are deleted are later successfully recreated?" And further, of these, how many would benefit from the contents of the delete article?--Docg 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And conversely, how many unwanted articles are recreated (and deleted again) using the contents of the earlier deleted article? The list of protected deleted pages is quite lengthy. >Radiant< 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retro

message: Sounds like a good proposal. JediMaster16 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: The key problem I see with this proposal is that the action of closing an XFD debate and redirecting the page can be done by anyone, even anonymous (IP) users.  What measures can be put in place to ensure that only trustworthy users close XFD debates under this proposal?  I would also propose that the redirect page is protected after a soft delete (perhaps indefinitely, or maybe for 2 weeks or so) to prevent opponents to a successful deletion engaging in a restoration/redelete edit war. Waggers 07:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem is something we already have, and I haven't seen that it causes us much trouble. Friday (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority / trust 

message: This might be acceptable for articles that are unsourced but not otherwise objectionable--these are the only cases which really present a real conceptual  difficult under the present system: they may be about truly notable subjects, and therefore should stay, but if they are unsourced they cannot prove it, and therefore should go. This is a sort of purgatory, it which they can stay not indefinitely, but for a very long time without being confused with verified articles.  
I would oppose it otherwise, for it makes everything harder by needing to do it twice: first to put  it in purgatory, and then to dispose of it one way or the other. We have enough problems doing it once. Any other purpose could be served by automatically permitting the userification of anything not libel or copyvio, with a fixed time limit of several months. DGG 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with much of this, and with User:Doc glasgow's comments above. AfD doesn't get seriously backlogged; adding another layer of purgatory (as DGG put it) would complicate the process and create another point for backlogs to develop. I think userification on demand solves this problem much more usefully. We can encourage people to check the deletion log prior to creating a new page, to ensure they're not duplicating effort; if a previously deleted article turns up, the AfD can be accessed, and the page itself could be provided (in userspace) by requesting it from an admin, so long as there are no BLP/copyvio issues. Also, we should encourage people to have evidence of notability ready at the time they create the article; far too often an article is created on the premise that sources will be forthcoming, but the sources never appear and the article sits around. MastCell Talk 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced

message: That whould frighten new editors, who were browsing for a page and then *pop*, a random "This page was deleted" pops up. No, just no. If I whould have seen that in the time I was a New Editor, I whould had left Wikipedia. And what if the subject becomes good enough to make an article with it? This will confuse new editors, and cause them to leave. If someone wants to see why it was deleted, they have to check it manually. WOW! What does it take? 2 Minutes? And then we have more editors who will hopefully contribute more than 2 minutes. I think it is not worth the sacrifice.
-  Flubeca t 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  We don't want Random article to take you to a deleted page.  Actually, I don't like the current Random article taking you to usually a pretty bad bad.  Maybe Random article should take you to a rate good (at least) page.  Someone somewhere has noted that cleaners aren't bothering with the articles needing clean-up category, but are just using Random article.  This says that Random article is serving cleaners, not readers.  (sorry to digress)  --SmokeyJoe 02:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Editors Concern

message: Prod is a serious problem when it is misused (or abused). The article is gone in a flash if nobody notices. And there is no AfD archive to see why. While creating content (yes, there are editors who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, not just policy and guideline talk pages), I make lots of red wikilinks in the blind. I can't tell you how many times, when following these links, I found an article that I could have used was deleted, sometimes recently, while a search turned up no AfD discussion. I assume these were proded into oblivion. Some may say this is no big deal, just create a new article with references. But when you are creating properly wiki-linked content, you often generate links faster than you can fill them out, and it's nice to have a stub to hang your hat on. And when you do create a stub, some sharp shooter is waiting to "nail it" even before you can catch your breath. And frankly, I am put off from creating a new article when the old one has been deleted--that's just asking for agita I don't need. So this is all very disconcerting to editors who actually contribute material. Frankly, we have too many editors who are self-appointed gate keepers who may in good faith think they are doing good work, but are really hurting the project in the long run. Dhaluza 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about we move prods to the attic for a given period, say 90 days, after which they are deleted. This allows people to browse the attic, identify articles to work on and improve but also prevents the attic from swelling to an enormous size. I'm not absolutely convinced there is a big problem here but I could live with a limited version of soft delete. However, AfD shouldn't be soft delete candidates. JodyB talk 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soft deletion is appropriate for Prods, by default.

message: To me, this seems like a mere technicality; a mechanism so that experienced users have easier access to the history of a deleted article. Everyone else, I think, will stop at the word "deletion", turn around, and walk out. I've seen AfDs ending as merge get treated as a deletion by the relevant community.
We already have a mechanism for viewing deleted histories (besides "ask an admin") in the content review portion of deletion review. Although I wouldn't mind making it more visible (yet another admin backlog: Requests for History), I don't see the value in making all afd-and-prod closers make a judgment about whether the history should be viewable or not. Nifboy 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With hard deletes, if you don't know an article was deleted, you are unlikely to find out about its prior existence and use either mechanism to peek back in time. That makes this more than a technicality.  --LambiamTalk 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not sure what this solves 

message: Reverted article revisions live on without disaster in public histories, yet deleted articles are hidden with barely a trace.  A Jimbo quote from 2003, echos my own sentiments: If a page has to be removed for a legal reason, then it should not be viewable by the general public. ("legal reason" would most often be copyright, but also libel would be possible.) If a page is removed for other reasons, then there is no reason to hide it from users who want to investigate and oversee changes. ( diff ).  This process allows deserved public access to removed materials.  In this review of an old theme, I support E's focus on avoiding, ...loss of article histories, and the power asymmetry between admins and regular users. (from above).  ∴ here…♠ 09:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transparency is good 

message: I would object to any procedure that does NOT create a redlink in mainspace when an article is deleted.
Redlinks are extremely useful for seeing that "something is wrong" (such as a reference that was to a page that is now gone), or to keep lists of things that are present / not present (such as a lot of the cleanup lists).
That said, I do agree that having noncontroversial-but-unimportant articles be viewable after deletion is a Good Thing. Suggestion for modification of proposal:
* Move article to Wikipedia:Attic/articlename, with no redirect breadcrumb trail
* (slightly more programming) Have the "create page" edit box show a prominent link to this page IF it is present. (shouldn't be much more work-at-runtime than the current red/blue links, but requires special coding), thus helping with the "inadverent recreation" problem
My thought. --Alvestrand 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks are good 

message: *1. How and what does this help?
*2. Sounds like spilled salt. 
I object to the soft deletion process. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There are no benefits coming out of this process. Unless someone can convince me (or Cool Blue) within a week, I will consider it rejected. Sr13 01:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two major benefits:  1) If an article is deleted because most of its material is not worthy of an article, the remaining portion is lost and unavailable to future authors who want to create a good article.  2) If an article is deleted due to lack of notability, the material will be unavailable if the subject becomes notable.  This is a particular problem for "rising stars" such as scientific theories that are not yet generally accepted, small-time politicians before they become well-known, and the like.  Wikipedia is not an oracle and these articles SHOULD be deleted, but the information should not be sealed forever.  Personally, I think all deleted articles that aren't legally-problematic, privacy-related,  abuse-magnets, or vanity-related should be soft-deleted rather than hard-deleted.  davidwr 09f9(talk) 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To rebut, one could simply ask one of the admins to userfy the page for them. Even then, what are the chances of an article to be created, then deleted, then be created again and be accepted as notable enough? Also, this process is simply a copy of what is already at deletion review. Sr13 04:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Object

message: Today, when you go to a non-existant page, you can view the deletion history: 
Changing this to   Previous versions can kept in another namespace, perhaps DeletedArticles:ArticleName/DeletedDate.  To prevent vanity, the web server can block "deep linking" into this namespace and search engines can be excluded.  Update:  I see my proposal is similar to Redlinks are good above.  davidwr 09f9(talk) 21:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transparent deletion via deletion history 

message: I doubt we will ever reach 100% consensus, but I think most people will be OK with the following broad outlines.  Implementation details can be worked on later.  Please tell me if you have any serious objections to this, and please comment on how to handle WP:SPEEDY deletions and how we should default AfD deletions.
Here are the broad outlines I think most of us have agreed on:
* No redirects.  Links to deleted articles get red-lined and in some cases bot-dewikilinked just like they do now.
* Certain categories like copyright, some BLP, etc. will be hard-deleted. See #Stab at categories to be hard-deleted below.
* WP:PROD should be soft-deleted unless there's a reason to hard-delete it.
* I'm unable to determine what we want to do with WP:SPEEDY deletions, most of them are either some form of vandalism, trivially non-notable/near-empty articles, or fall into the one of the auto-hard-delete categories
* By default, AfD will result in a soft deletion.  If it met the hard-deletion criteria it would've already been deleted without an AfD.  I'm not sure if we have consensus on this, particularly for cases where "hiding history" is desired by almost all of the participants of AfD. Comment:  Personally, I think we should leave Hard Deletion as an option but ONLY if there is a true consensus or near-consensus, not just a majority, on a given AfD.
* Some automated mechanism to allow users who know what they are doing to access deleted versions without confusing new users.  This could be through something akin to userfication or through some alternate "attic" namespace.  Bear in mind that there may be more than one soft-deleted version of an article, each version should be accessible on its own or in combination by any editor who wants to see it. Comment:  As an example of how to do this:  The "article does not exist" page or "deletion history" page could have an unobtrusive link that led to the old articles or that led to instructions to userfy the old articles.  Just as a side-note, I'd like to see a "copy this version to your user page" button that would clone a particular soft-deleted version to User:yourname/Articlename/versionnumber where versionnumber is 1 for the oldest version of the article, 2 for the 2nd, etc. or User:yourname/Articlename/deletiondate where deletiondate is the date and time of the deletion.  After copy is complete you would have a message on your talk page with a link to the userfied copy.  This has the advantage that the master deleted copy is read-only but the user can mark up his version and collaborate with others if he wants to.
davidwr 09f9(talk) 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stab at least-common denominator 

message: I went through WP:SPEEDY and separated categories that I think should be  hard-deleted by default and which should be soft-deleted by default.  If a speedy-deleted article meets any hard-deleted criteria, it should get hard-deleted.  Please comment.
Hard:
GENERAL: 
G1: Nonsense; 
G2: Test pages; 
G3: Vandalism; 
G4: Previously deleted, if all edits are exactly the same as a previous version; 
G5: Banned user; 
G6: Housekeeping; 
G9: Office actions;  
G10: Attack pages/libel; 
G11:Spam; 
G12: Copyright infringement; 
ARTICLE: A3: No content/contact attempt; 
REDIRECT: R1: Points at redlink; 
R2: To userspace; 
R3: Unlikely typo; 
IMAGE: I1: Redundant, all edits are exact copies of another article's edits; 
I2: Corrupt image, no uncorrupted version in edit history; 
I3: Bad license; 
I4: No License; 
I5: Copyrighted, unused; 
16: Missing fair use rationale; 
I7: Invalid fair use claim; 
I8: Identical on Commons, all previous versions are also on commons; 
CATEGORY:  C1: Empty; 
C2: Renamed; 
C3: Templated; 
USERSPACE: U2: Nonexistent user; 
U3: Fair use galleries; 
Soft: 
G8: Talk pages without a main page; 
A1: No context; 
A2: Foreign language (transwikied), hard-delete if history also transwikied; 
A3: No content/contact attempt; 
A5: Transwikied, hard-delete if history also transwikied; 
A7: No claim of notability; 
I1: Redundant, at least 1 edit is unique; 
I8: Identical on Commons, a previous version exists that is not on commons; 
TEMPLATE:  T1: Divisive/offensive template; 
PORTAL: P1: Portal Topic Meets CSD for an Article; 
P2: Underpopulated Portal; 
Do not speedy-delete: (requires change to speedy-deletion policy):
I2: Corrupt image, able to revert to uncorrupted version in edit history and "delete" corrupted one; 
Case-by-case basis: 
G4: Previously deleted, do hard/soft the same as deleted version if there are only minor changes from deleted version.  If there are substantial changes then it's a new article; 
G7: Author's request - soft by default, ask author if he wants hard; 
U1: Owner's request - soft by default, ask owner if he wants hard
davidwr 09f9(talk) 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam should either be soft or case-by-case.  It's as subjective as A7 in practice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stab at categories to be hard-deleted 

message: There doesn't seem to be a firm proposal for WP:SPEEDY and WP:AfD  actions, but I think we are in agreement on WP:PROD.
Before I propose this formally, I want to see if it needs tweaking:
Proposal:  Keep PRODded articles by Userfication or moving to the Attic
* If a PRODded article has only one major non-anonymous contributor, WP:USERFY it.  Otherwise, move it to a new Attic: namespace.  In either case, provide a pointer to it in the deletion log.
* The behavior of the new Attic namespace will need to be fleshed out.  For example, will articles be WP:PROTected?  Will search engines be kept out?  Will Wikipedia's internal search offer the option of searching Attic?  These and other issues can be hammered out later.
So, thumbs up? Thumbs down?  Discussion? davidwr 09f9(talk) 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with the human-judgement on atticization to allow for PRODded articles to be simply deleted.  However, I expect pure-deletes to be rare since almost everything that was truly that useless would qualify for SPEEDY.  davidwr 09f9(talk) 03:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the advantage of unprotection?  Protection has the advantage that the article is frozen at the time of moving to the attic.  Any user is free to copy the article to his own userspace or to make a new, improved article.  Also, articles in the attic are unlikely to be watched, which makes them prime targets for vandals or people who might hijack an article to post copyrighted materials.  By protecting them, it reduces the load on those of us who watch recent-article changes.  I'm leaving speedies out of the discussion for the time being so we can come to a consensus on something. If everyone here agrees, I'm open to adding this to the proposal:  "This new POLICY says PROposed Deletions SHOULD be userfied or moved to the attic unless there is a reason not to do so.  Editors considering SPEEDY-deletions who plan on moving the article to the attic should consider using PROposed Deletion instead." davidwr 09f9(talk) 03:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can be happy either way about protection, but I think that the RC load would be manageable. After all the goal is to get the articles back in the mainspace and so we might as well keep an eye on them. I think Mr. Z-Man's comments below about a time limit is good and that keeps the numbers from getting unmanageable. However I'll not be displeased either way on protection. I certainly agree that we can keep speedies out of the process for now. I was just thinking ahead on that last comment. But for now keep it simple and keep it for prods only. JodyB talk 11:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no point in Attic articles being protected.  The soft deleted version will exist in the history.  Protection encourages forking, which is a bad thing.  Protection is an administrative function, and thus complicates the process.  I see no problem with articles being edited in the Attic, and I see this as preferable to an article being moved into someones userspace.  No one owns things in the Attic, and no one is supposed to own articles.  --SmokeyJoe 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support the present proposal (I tweaked it slightly to make it clear what to delete; this is the only part that needs admin powers, I think.) I would also like the template for "there is no page here" to contain a link to the Attic/X page if it exists - that isn't mentioned now, and may need programming. --Alvestrand 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be wiser not to propose features in this stage that require programming. There is already a link to the deletion log, which, if you follow it, should alert you to the existence of a deleted page, and moreover give a hint as to the reason for deletion.  --LambiamTalk 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New, bare-bones proposal:  Userfy or attic PRODded articles