Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 5

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 2004 and August 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to, if necessary.
Please add new archivals to another archive page. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

message: There appears to be confusing about the meaning of this section of the policy. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Unbibium. I think that section should be revised for clarity. Eric119 18:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of this topic was to make the policy clearer. Not being sure of the intent, I don't know what the wording should be. Eric119 04:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I would be in favor of this if the time limit were changed to 72 hours, to account for those of us who don't check in every day or take off for a weekend. --Stevietheman 22:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes go for weeks between checking VfD, but I don't think a time limit of weeks would be a good idea. A 24-hour time limit sounds good to me because it would allow a reasonable sampling of VfD-active people to take a look at the proposal. If the system is set up right then I shouldn't have to approve every VfD proposal personally. Bryan 16:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But three days is reasonable compared to "weeks". Some active VfD people don't take weeks off at a time, but still need to feel comfortable with taking some reasonable breaks. --Stevietheman 07:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But you do not need every listing or unlisting to be viewed by every editor. If you did, we would be arguing that the lag on VfD needs to be more than a fortnight to allow for vacations! Do you personally need to endorse all actions on VfD? Do you not take that to be the responsibility of the community as a whole? If you were away and felt something had been delisted wrongly, why would you not be able to put it back on the list?Dr Zen 23:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisting a page from VfD 

message: From:
"To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, and any votes or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith. At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" (what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus") has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains. The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted."
To:
"To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, and any votes or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith. At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" (what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus") has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains. The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted. If a page is listed without a reason or without its listing being signed, its listing is liable to be removed by any editor."
(My emphasis solely to point up my addition.)
This suggestion is prompted by considering Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lewis Moody, in which it seems an editor stuck on the VfD message, but did not list the page, which often happens (most usually because, one presumes, the lister is a newbie who isn't sure of the process). I am not suggesting these listings should always be struck out. I am suggesting we have wording that allows them to be if an editor feels they are incorrectly listed, as this clearly was. Niteowlneils does a lot of really good work converting this type of listing, and I'm not wanting to denigrate his effort, but rather to allow him and others to use their judgement and simply remove the listing (or the tag) without being challenged for going against policy.
Any comments?Dr Zen 01:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is overwhelming consensus for another action than deletion, leave the page listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent needless reposting of the same item. After the original poster has seen the explanation, or in any case after about a day, the page can be delisted from VfD. If another user thinks the early delisting was appropriate, the page may be listed again until the lag time is completed.
**Do you agree with this? In any case I think we should get more support before changing the policy. Eric119 16:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wording change 

message: See also Wikipedia:Deletion unlisting and of course Wikipedia talk:Deletion unlisting. Andrewa 00:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion unlisting mechanism 

message: Am I alone in thinking that the speedy delete tag should only be used for articles, and not images, categories or templates?  So far, I have skipped images, categories and templates because I am not sure that they are covered by any of the criteria for speedy deletion.  Is there an existing policy on this?  Right now the wording in CAT:CSD makes it seem like it's only for articles.  Any ideas? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:06, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion includes specifications for redirects, categories, images, and user and talk pages. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  images, categories, templates in [[CAT:CSD]]? 

message: Deletion policy is not very clear on it. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says in section  Commenting on a listing for deletion 
:" When someone has listed an article for deletion on one of the lists, anyone else may comment on the request. When expressing an opinion, please include your opinion, your reasoning, and sign with  ~~~~ "
I doesn't say whether reasoning is optional or must. It uses the world 'please', which keeps the question open. If it implies any of these believes, it is too vague.
But this is half of the story if user gives reasoning but these reasoning are not valid another question arises. It is also vague in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators it says in its section Rough consensus. 
:" administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article."
Now if some body simply doesn't want an information offending his believes will it be considered 'good faith' this is very questionable. Second thing is that almost gets no mention of invalid reason.
Zain 00:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Extracts from 'Official policy guidelines'

message: Well I think it is clear from the different point of views in above discussion. Wikipedia does not have any 'clear official policy' on 'votes with invalid reasons'. If there is a 'clear official policy', at least it is not clear to voters and to admins.
Zain 10:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions. Wikipedia has no clear 'official policy' on it

message: Does this page still need to be listed at WP:RFC? Maurreen 01:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing this page from RFC. Maurreen 08:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Does anyone object to the removal of If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article? It only encourages vanity authors to keep re-creating their articles. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 20:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
*How about if it read "recreated in different forms by apparently different people"? Kappa 20:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-creation 

message: I'm not sure if this is the best place to address this, or if it's being addressed elsewhere, but the backlog of VfDs is potentially causing some problems, and at least one point needs clarification. VfDs are supposed to be open for 5 days (in general) then resolved. Well, we all know there are open cases going back weeks. I understand why, and I don't think that in itself is much of a problem, but the question becomes are votes made after the 5 day period (in some cases long after) but while the page is still "live", with no action taken on it, to be counted? I've seen it addressed in some votes; someone will add a comment stating that the above vote was made after the voting period was closed, but I don't know if they are ever discounted. How is this handled? -R. fiend 16:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog

message: In my opinion we need to add an explicit requirement that one properly uses edit summaries when listing articles for deletion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion AND on those articles.  Otherwise the creators and contributors of those articles are not actually given notice.  Perhaps we could go so far as to require the contacting of the creator of an article when it is listed on VfD? Hyacinth 00:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries

message: Many people who are casting VfD votes keep saying that the articles are unencyclopedic.  But I have a new proposal; have Wikipedians say that they are "not Wikipedic" instead. --SuperDude 01:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjectives for Encyclopedias 

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load about ways that the size of VfD might be reduced.  While there is still much discussion about possible new procedures and policies, there is a general consensus that one way to reduce the size would be to encourage editors to use other processes before or instead of nominating a page for deletion.  Some of these other processes are:
#Research the subject. A lot of articles are placed on VfD because of very little/poor content, but then kept because the subject is determined to be encyclopedic, even if the article in its current state is not.  Nominators should put more effort into finding out if the subject of the article is keepable, and make sure it is correctly categorized/stub-tagged/cleanup-tagged.
#Patience.  Two applications of this -
## Give an article at least a little time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate.  Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it.
##"A month" isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on "this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!"  Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it.  Not all editors are Wikipedaholics.
#Categorize/Stub-tag/Listing on the appropriate "needs attention" page.  In conjunction with the two points above, an article may not have been "placed" or linked to a place where an editor with knowledge of the subject can find it and fix it.  
#Merge and Redirect. Any editor can do this.  See Wikipedia:Merge, Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Duplicate articles.  This would help with sending "cruft" articles/info to a place where the info will get attention from informed sources, and unnecessary/inappropriate stuff can get deleted without clogging VfD and requring admin attention.  Also Move can be used by any logged-in user, when appropriate.
#Use the article's Discussion page to raise questions about an article's appropriateness.  Also, discussions on the talk pages of articles related to the subject can be especially useful in determining if an article should be merged with a larger article.
#So fix it.  While "write about what you know about" is certainly useful, it's definitely not a rule or requirement or anything.  No reason that editors couldn't or shouldn't do some research (even if it's just online research) and make some improvements themselves rather than VFDing it. 
Please note that this is not a suggestion about changing policy or procedure.  This is simply "spreading the word" about some possible ways that we can reduce the size of VfD, and so this will be posted in several places around Wikipedia.  Thanks for listening.  Soundguy99 16:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing VfD load 

message: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense says that patent non-sense is not to be confused with... Hoaxes and to Check the Deletion policy policy for information on how to handle these things.  But the deletion policy does not mention anything about hoaxes.  What is the policy regarding hoaxes?--AI 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles which are hoaxes are deletable.  (Articles about a particularly notable hoax may or may not be accepted by the community.)  Hoax articles, however, are explicitly not speedy-deletable.  We have had far too many cases where an article was nominated for deletion as a "hoax" but during the VfD discussion were discovered to be true (though very obscure).  Because of this, hoax articles must go through the Votes for Deletion process so that they are scrutinized by multiple people.  See my user page for an informal list of examples.  Patent nonsense, on the other hand, is speedy-deletable and can be deleted without discussion by the first admin who happens to discover it.  Rossami (talk) 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoaxes 

message: The word "sockpuppet" is used with-out definition.  Please either explain this neologism or at least give it double brackets  to a definition. (by Kdammers 2005-07-13 12:03:58)
*You should do the same I did the first time I found such an expression: Write it on the search box, hit the search button, and voilá! You've found a WP policy! there's no point in linking everything just in case someone doesn't know it. - Nabla 13:04:59, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
I disagree.  While not every-thing should be linked, rare words and neologisms should be defined when first used in an article.  Wik is hard enough to understand as it is; using rare words and abbreviations all over the place is a great turn-off.  Besides, since Wik often crashes systems and the back button often drops sites visited, I am hesitant to just take off chasing down words I don't know.  (Actually, I knew the word, but I'm writing in the interest of the general public. Kdammers 03:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Write clearly, please. 

message: This proposal and the resulting discussion have been moved to Talk:Acetone peroxide#Wikipedia should not help terrorists to build bombs.  Rossami (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia should not help terrorists to build bombs

message: Looking over all of the rules on deletion, I noticed something not discussed: what is the minimum number of votes needed (either in total or for deletion) before one should consider a consensus exists in favor of deleting an article? I ask this because it's obvious to me that any motivated Wikipedian could easily muster 3-4 other Wikipedians to vote to delete an article -- which means some articles could get deleted with a minimum of 5 votes (all for deletion). Any thoughts about whether we ought to have a quorum? -- llywrch 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum number of votes? 

message: Recently there have been several cases where proposed policy changes that were unpopular, or allegedly invalid or created in bad faith, have been listed for deletion on VfD, and at least one case where such a VfD page itself was listed on VfD. This is not a good idea, so i propose to add the following text to the main page:
In general, policy pages and proposed policy or guideline pages should not be listed on VfD. The proper course is to discuss the policy or proposed policy on the relevant policy or talk page, or to conduct or participate in a poll. If it becomes clear that the policy does not have consensus support, the  tag may be applied to the relevant page. This documents the community view better than a VfD page would, and avoids a VfD from being a back-door method to reject a policy or proposed policy.
It is improper to list a VfD sub-page on VfD. If anyone feels that the VfD is inappropriate or should be closed early, that can be discussed on the VfD page itself without the need for a separate page. Such separate pages only increase the load on VfD and split the discussion to no benefit. Do not nominate VfD pages for deletion by using the  tag.
Would anyone object to the above? I think it would be helpful. DES (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it unobjectionable. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: While an inappropriate nomination should be shouted down, I disagree with its deletion.  Just close the discussion early and move on.  Nothing is gained from wasting the time to argue over the fate of a VfD sub-page.  Rossami (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Radiant, sorry if this is a tangent to what you're trying to say, but I'm a bit disturbed by your mention of "criticism of <foo>" articles.  Increasingly, there has been a notion afoot that such pages, or any pages where the subject is strong POVs are themselves "inherently POV" and meriting of deletion -- flying directly in the face of WP:NPOV, where it's made clear that we do report on what people believe, and the reasons why they believe it, and even if their POV is strong, that does not make the article POV.  While a "criticism of <foo>" could certainly originate from an edit war and/or POV forking, it could also just be a standard article spinout, no more "inherently POV" than if "Early history of <foo>" had been the sub-topic chosen to get its own article.  Again, sorry if this is a tangent, but I am worried that we're starting to see "inherently POV" misapplied in order to get articles that describe (or even just acknowledge) unpopular POVs deleted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate use of VfD 

message: I have removed the  tag from this page and replaced it with the notice box appearing on VfD itself. The current outpouring of concerns and demand for some sort of Deletion reform point up the fact that community consensus no longer stands behind this page. 
I don't doubt that some editor will desire to revert the tag, claiming I've taken unilateral action. Before doing so, I urge a thorough reading of the ongoing debate. While consensus has not yet emerged on the topic, clearly it has been withdrawn from the status quo. To revert the tag is to take unilateral action unsupported by consensus; I have merely expressed the will of the group. — Xiong熊talk* 16:09, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
: I di not revert, but insted edited your notice to indicate that this page is policy until and unless a new consensus forms, which has not yet happened. It is proper to notify people using this page of the ongoing debate, IMO, although i would have done it by putting a comment in addition to the policy tag, not in replacement of it. DES (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put the tag back.  1) The Deletion reform debate is about changing the mechanics of the deletion process, not the core of the underlying deletion policy.  2) There is little indication to me that the current reform debate will result in any substantive change.  (Note:  There are a few who are arguing arguing for a complete scrapping of the concept of deletion but they represent a very small minority of the debate participants and, I believe, an even small minority of the total population.)  This remains policy until it is formally renounced or replaced.  Rossami (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reinstated the policy tag. It is as out-of-place to unilaterally (yes, I used the word) declare a policy "no longer policy" as it is to declare a non-policy "now policy". You cannot claim a mandate for either without, well, asking for such a mandate! Wait for the discussions to end with a clear community consensus before playing around with the status of our existing procedures. It was opting not to wait for such discussions that cause this whole mess in the first place! -Splash 18:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer policy