Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 9

message: NetOracle has been nominating a large amount of webcomics for deletion if they only vaguely fit the deletion criteria.  68.42.37.75 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse of Deletion Policy

message: I believe that moderators are abusing their power to delete pages. For instance, there is a moderator that is racist against anything non=Japanese, who deletes anime pages simply because he doesn't think they are "Japanese" enough. In actuality, there are several like this, but the one I'm talking about is Farix. He voted to delete the article for an anime fansite just because he didn't think it was Japanese enough. I think that mods should have to give legitimate reasons for deleting something, not just personal feelings. Just like in articles, there should be a requirement to cite sources. I've been going to Wikipedia for a while now, and I'm starting to lose my faith in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlindJustice (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Reform

message: I just did some quick analysis of December deletion statistics.  I focused on deletion review, because that was what I was most interested in.  Counting AFDs could be interesting also, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Deletion log entries are for all spaces (article, talk, User, Image, etc...)
Deletion Activity
* Rough deletion log entries (by approximate offsets, should be within 1K): 114,000 entries
* % of entries restorations: 2.02% (111 of sampled 5,500).
* Deletions: ~111,700
* Restores: ~2,300
* Net Deletions: ~109,400
* Net Deletions/Day: ~3,529
Deletion Review
* Deletion Reviews Opened: 210 (6.77 per day average, high of 15)
* Deletions Reviewed: 0.188% (ignoring the fact that some reviews are of keep decisions at AFD)
* Deletions overturned: 53 (excludes PRODs and overturns by deleting admin while DRV underway)
* Keeps overturned: 7
* Overturn rate: About 30%-33% for controversial items
* Deletions reviewed and overturned by DRV: ~0.05% (one-twentieth of one percent)
GRBerry 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2006 Deletion Statistics 

message: What are the guidelines on deleting old user talk pages?  There doesn't seem to be any info here. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines are that you don't, unless m:Right to vanish is invoked, and even then, you have to show that there is no communication that people will care about on the pages you delete. -Amark moo! 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified on the main page. >Radiant< 13:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User talk 

message: The page recommends "Add  or " for "Annoying or incivil user" under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed.  In the deletion discussion for civil 1 folks mentioned that templating users at these times is counterproductive.  I'm going to go ahead take out that text for now (obviously it's not helpful to refer to deleted templates), but I'd suggest putting in wording like "Respectfully and gently ask the user to follow the civility policy" or some such. Any thoughts?  delldot | talk 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted templates

message: This article is unclear in a most fundamental way; it does say that an admin is needed to delete a page, but it does Not mention if non-admins can nominate articles for deletion. I would edit the page to answer this, but I don't know the answer. Help?  Wolphii 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, non-admins can nominate articles for deletion.  Follow the steps outlined at WP:AFD.  Let me know on my talk page if you need any help. delldot | talk 07:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Unclear 

message: If a user can only use Wikipedia once a week, say a random weekend day, they will miss a Monday AfD listing.  8 days would be fairer. Notatest 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article actually shouldn't be deleted, more than one person will argue that, so it really doesn't matter all that much. -Amarkov moo! 15:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Notatest has given a rationale for the proposed change to a 8 days consensus building period.  What is your rationale for retaining 5 days? Parasite 09:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems likely that some people only edit at weekends, so a time period that guarantees that a weekend is covered would be better--Amaccormack 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Likely? Do you have statistics to back up that claim? >Radiant< 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Many, as in a non-trivial number.Dhaluza 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I realize this is getting repetitive, but "non-trivial"? Do you have statistics to back up that claim? The point that I'm making here is that we do not create or amend policy based on hypothesis or conjecture. If you propose a change, the burden is on you to demonstrate this change actually accomplishes something, such as fixing a problem that is real rather than imaginary. >Radiant< 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you provide access to the Wikipedia access logs and database, I can write a script or query for you that will show the distribution of people who use Wikipedia mainly at weekends. How am I supposed to provide evidence otherwise? To demand evidence but not provide the opportunity to generate the evidence is silly. --Amaccormack 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest changing 5 days to 8 days 

message: I recently made an edit to application of the notability criteria, and it was reverted citing the main misconception that was the reason for the change. Many editors are under the mistaken impression that AfD is a judgment on the current state of an article, and failure of an author to meet  notability criteria in the current text is grounds for deletion. This is a perversion of the whole process. We are supposed to support each other, and an editor who creates an article that falls short should be helped by other editors if possible. So if the subject is notable, the article should be improved to establish notability, not deleted by other editors sitting in judgment. Dhaluza 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I meant. The problem is, "cannot meet" implies that if the subject might become notable later, it should be kept, which is not the case. It should be clarified to note that cleanup to establish notability should be done if possible, but that isn't a good way to do it. -Amarkov moo! 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, "will not meet" would imply future notability, which as you correctly point out would not qualify. I'm open to other formulations, as long as they address the main problem which is the snap judgment tendency. Dhaluza 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability relates to the subject, not the current state of the article.  

message: I think there is an important point here that needs to be stated explicitly, because it does not come through loud and clear now:
:The correct way to deal with articles of questionable encyclopedic value is:
:# Try to improve the article so it can stand on its own
:# If it cannot stand on it's own, merge relevant content to a related article that can
:# Delete remaining non-relevant content
Is there any problem with adding this? Dhaluza 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page already says that several different times.  If you can find a way to say it more clearly, be bold.  Rossami (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities 

message: ...is a draft for rewriting this policy to make it less long and complex, and incorporate the undeletion policy as well. It should not be a substantial change, just a clearer version. Please comment on its talk page, and/or copyedit. >Radiant< 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Draft]] 

message: I have long been complaining that webcomics articles are deleted unfairly. In defence of this view I offer the following:
Posted on Reinder Dijkhuis's blog at http://rocr.xepher.net/weblog/archives/001935.html
Lee M 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the full deletion debate, I note that many other established editors joined the conversation and offered other reasons for deletion.  Even with the assertions offered above, closing this debate would have been a judgment call.  Reviewing the deleted content, I would probably have argued to delete this page too.  As a project, I believe we are too biased in our coverage of recent and internet-based phenomena.  Any process is fallible, especially if someone deliberately abused our assumptions of good faith (which, by the way, is itself a direct violation of policy and a banning offense).  But it actually looks to me like the process worked in this case.  You can always appeal the decision to deletion review if you disagree.  Rossami (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed webcomics deletion policy tested

message: Hi.
Why can't articles be purged completely and irrevocably from Wikipedia servers? What about copyvios? Or libel? Those should be purged completely and irrevocably. 74.38.32.195 08:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Parasite 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Cause they are law violations? And it would free server space. Since they're law violations, there is nothing wrong with removing them (especially the copyvios -- there's no "GNU License" excuse there!) 74.38.32.195 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicality again 

message: This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.
Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Cross-namespace]]

message: Based on complaints that the deletion policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted, several people have revised the deletion policy page, to clarify it, remove redundancy, and incorporate material from a few related policies, in particular WP:PROD, WP:UNDEL and WP:CBLANK. This is not a change in policy, just a reworking of the relevant pages. The draft can be found at the link above; unless there are big objections, the intent is to move this over the present deletion policy as a new version; the second step would be to verify that it contains all relevant material from the related policies mentioned above, and complete the merge with a redirect. Please comment on the draft's talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Draft]] 

message: What is the rationale behind Deletion For Privacy?  Did this materialize because of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy?.100110100 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Privacy]] 

message: From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion.  Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod.  Thank you.  —dgiestc 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy: Template prod

message: I've removed the statement that the speedy criteria boil down to an obvious absence of encyclopedic content.  The speedy criteria, as partially remarked on WP:SPEEDY, have been drawn narrowly as a result of various historical compromises regarding which material is safe to delete on sight and which material should be discussed before deletion.  They're not intended to be criteria of what is encyclopedic and what isn't.  For example, (i) a page giving 1,000,000,000 digits of π, (ii) an essay explaining why chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla and everyone should prefer it to vanilla, and (iii) a list of all persons in Adelaide would all be obviously unencyclopedic, but none of these things are speediable. Spacepotato 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, even indisputable absence of encyclopedic content isn't speediable. And while in some sense, they are criteria of what is encyclopedic and what isn't, they scrape the very bottom of the barrel; like you said, there are many things which are obviously unencyclopedic, but not speediable. -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually several of those would be G4 :) at any rate, you're right, the point of this page is not to define the speedy criteria, we can simply link there. >Radiant< 08:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy != obvious absence of encyclopedic content 

message: The previous policy lists two cases when article deletion may be necessary because of WP:A failure:
# If an article is original research (and is therefore unattributable.)
# If, for an unsourced article, an editor has looked for sources and asked other editors for sources, and these actions have both failed to produce sources for the article.
To match the former policy, it seems to be clearer and more correct to reproduce these two cases. Spacepotato 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion because of [[WP:A]] failure 

message: I've re-added two emphasis notes (that >1000 pages deleted per day, and that merging doesn't require discussion). These are common novice mistakes. The paragraph about who can participate in AFD discussions belongs in the AFD section, not the header. Note that contesting a speedy doesn't mean it can't get deleted anyway, and note that you don't need to know the CSDs by heart in order to PROD. It's certainly valid to PROD (or AFD) an article that would technically be a speedy. >Radiant< 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I agree with some mention of how many pages are deleted, but thought the 1000 figure covered only articles.  Isn't the actual figure for all delete pages closer to 5000 per day?  (2) I am also OK with the "merging doesn't require discussion" notice.  (3) Yep, the paragraph about blocked users should go as it's redundant anyway (I added it, but it really is unnecessary given the format of this version).  (4) Contesting a speedy doesn't mean it can't get deleted, but only if it is retagged or an admin happens across it.  If it is retagged (and good-faith contestations of speedy deletions really shouldn't be retagged), we simply go back to step one.  I felt it was confusing so I've removed/rewritten it.  Please re-add if it can be done so while avoiding this confusion.  (5) True, prod can be used even for speedy-able cases; there was no need for that sentence.  -- Black Falcon 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Also, struck the CSK paragraph for now as it was poorly worded (will look into that) and removed the "except blocked users" bit because that's covered in WP:BLOCK. Also, several of the "main article" links aren't useful as this page is intended to cover it entirely. And finally, the 'courtesy blanking' section shouldn't talk about sockpuppets or removing personal attacks (which is controversial anyway). >Radiant< 10:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I think there should be some mention of speedy keep, but have no problem with an alternate wording.  The "blocked users" bit can be removed as a minor detail already covered elsewhere.  In any case, a blocked user who tries to participate in a deletion discussion will quickly discover that s/he can't.  I also have no problem with focusing the 'courtesy blanking' section on the narrow(er) and less controversial definition.  Regarding your third point, I don't think this page should cover WP:UNDEL ("courtesy blanking" is different as it doesn't have much unique content).  WP:UNDEL provides miuch information that, if merged here, would bloat this page.  -- Black Falcon 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit note 

message: There's been a good deal of complaint recently at AfD about the arapid renomination of pages on AfD, until a successful vote can be (perhaps by change) obtained. I feel, and others there also feel, that this is an abuse of process. Perhaps now is the time to say specify something about this, and the wording I suggest is that material keep as a result of a AfD cannot be re-proposed for deletion by any process except deletion review for three months. (time adjustable--personally, i would choose 6 months, but this may be too much of a step. I'd also accept "at least one month" . I'm not sure to say about items closed as "no consensus".DGG 09:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: repeated Deletion Discussions

message: I have created article Internet troll squads, and it was marked for deletion. Could you take a look and tell your opinion? I think, this case might be interesting for defining deletion policies in general. Biophys 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting discussion

message: somewhere along the lines of "what arguments not to use in a deletion discussion". Anyone know what I'm talking about? Blueaster 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i'm lookinf for a certain essay on deletion...