Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 6

message: I can understand that deleted pages should be redlinks and shouldn't show to spiders, but is there any reason not to let ordinary users see deleted pages that aren't copyvios? Very occasionally I've read an interesting VfD or the like and wanted to see what the fuss was all about. ~~ N (t/c) 04:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, if they were visible, there would be no point in the deletion. Imagine for instance a nn-bio; if the deleted page were visible, the user would still have the "glory" of being on the wiki. Similar arguments can be made for every kind of deleted page. The possibility of seeing deleted pages via Special:Undelete exists to make it possible to revert mistakes on deletion, not for causual browsing (you probably haven't seen the undelete interface yet — it's very limited; you can only see the parsed text of a particular revision (but not its source or a diff with other revisions)). --cesarb 04:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there could be several schools on thought on that. On the one hand, consider the following scenario. Suppose an amateur guitarist adds some promotional text about himself to an article on famous musicians. Someone else reverts. Nonetheless, the text of that promotional version remains in the history forever, and the guitarist can email that link to his friends and show them how he is on the wiki. So in that sense, there is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction between how we treat promotional text within other articles, and how we treat promotional text in its own separate article. Consider this as well: A major reason we delete objectionable articles is so that they don't show up on internet searches. Whether deleted versions are viewable to logged-in users or not, we can arrange it so that deleted articles doesn't show up on internet searches. However, letting users view the deleted articles ensures that any valuable information deleted along with the article that was considered unacceptable as a whole is readily available. It also lets users see what the deleted article was like, so that if they are thinking of re-creating it, and are acting in good faith, perhaps they won't make the mistake of posting a similar article. Moreover, although I'm not too familiar with Votes for Undeletion, I imagine it could help improve undeletion decisionmaking by letting people see the article they're voting on. In conclusion, I say, let's just make the deleted articles available for logged-in users to view, and if it causes an increase in bad articles, we can always change it back. 24.54.208.177 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should be able to view deleted articles. We recently had an editor who seemed to have a major interest in merging and deleting. These will be reviewed and it would be helpful to see what was in the merged or deleted article to see if they need to be re-visited.—Who123 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. I think the technology exists so that deleted articles won't show up on searches. A permalink to the deleted article can show it framed within a clear notice that has been deleted, and provide a link to the AfD discussion page. The viewing of deleted articles can be limited to users who log in and have been on WP for some time - the same way only users who are logged in can edit protected articles. Wl219 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they could be made visible, but perhaps only to a registered user who has been here for a while and has made X number of "significant" edits (need definition of "significant"), for example. Also, why not make it possible to delete entries from page histories (addressing a previous point about the stuff staying in the history)? 74.38.32.128 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why make deleted pages invisible? 

message: Sorry if this has been discussed before. I'm wondering whether there's any will to change the deletion policy so that admins can speedy delete clear cases of companies using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I found a page tonight Solms TCD, a company that gets only four unique Google hits, two of which are wikinews pages (now deleted). Yet according to the policy, we'll have to go through a VfD to delete it, which seems like a waste of time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
: The sticking point in every prior discussion has been our inability to write a "bright-line" distinction between an irredeemable self-promotion and an article that is merely a poorly written stub.  Do you have proposed wording?  Rossami (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion was recently raised about this at Wikipedia talk:Spam. At Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "Advertising or other spam" is currently listed under the heading of "Problems that may require deletion," and the solution listed is "List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)." On the other hand, "Article is biased or has lots of POV" is listed under the heading of "Problems that don't require deletion," and the solution listed there is "List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention." My own proposal is that we base the decision on notability as follows: (1) If a promotional-sounding article is posted about a non-notable subject, it should be AFD'ed for non-notability; and (2) If a promotional-sounding article is posted about a notable subject, an NPOV tag should be placed on it so it can be rewritten. If the user who finds the biased article doesn't want to spend time rewriting it, it is pretty easy to temporarily change it to a stub. That also preserves any info in the history that should be retained for future reference. A rationale for this policy is that, as Rossami implies, there can be a fine line between a promotional article and one that is merely informational. 24.54.208.177 01:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies self-promoting 

message: I suggest adding a reference to the school page discussion into this page section "Problems that don't require deletion". Something like : 
Article is about a school	See Wikipedia:Schools page. Likely not to be deleted.	 
Thoughts ? Gtabary 23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose this. While there has not been consensus to delete school articles recently, neither has there been a celar consesnsus to keep most of them. This creates a rule out of a lack of agreement. DES (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it isn't appropriate.  Schools are flavor of the month at the moment, but in another six months, who knows, we could all have decided that they don't belong in Wikipedia.  Let's try to keep the deletion policy immune to such trends. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the schools guideline 

message: Wikipedia:Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability proposal

message: From the current text of the project page:
If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed on Wikipedia:Articles 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 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 AFD.
I propose that this be re-worded. The way this reads now, it sounds like following this process would involve actually removing the transclusion from the AfD page, rather than performing a speedy keep, as has often been done. I think that even if a consensus quickly develops for a non-delete solution, the deletion discussion should still remain transcluded on the AfD page, and simply be closed. I propose the following re-wording:
"If a clear consensus for a solution is quickly reached that does not involve formal deletion, a deletion discussion may be closed before the end of the five day discussion period. Examples would include a clear consensus for speedy deletion, where the article is speedy deleted, or a clear consensus for a speedy keep. In these situations, the debate should be closed, but remain transcluded on the AfD page. However, if the proposed solution is disputed, the AfD listing should remain for the full five day period."
Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I made the change. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewoirded this slightly. I chnged "is disputed" to "has not achieved a very clear consensus". I don't want wiki-lawyers to claim that because a single person objected, a decision was "disputed" and a speedy result invalid. DES (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisting a page from AFD 

message: This is already current practise (except when things go off the rails). You can probably just make the change. -Splashtalk 16:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I made the change. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewoirded this slightly. I chnged "is disputed" to "has not achieved a very clear consensus". I don't want wiki-lawyers to claim that because a single person objected, a decision was "disputed" and a speedy result invalid. DES (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" has been considered a valid reason for deletion literally for years: for almost two years.
10 November 2003 (inline in the text)
17 October 2004 (neatly boxed as in present format)
It was recently removed, with, as nearly as I can tell, no discussion here. The edit comment says merely "removed extremely POV point." 
I'm restoring it, pending discussion and consensus here. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be restored. - SimonP 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" 

message: This important part of deletion policy seems to have been removed recently without discussion.   It's been part of deletion policy since March 30, 2004 (Theresa Knott compromise version). 
Whoever did that, don't do it again.  Please don't remove aspects of deletion policy simply because you may personally find them inconvenient. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it.  It is an authoriative statement on deletion policy and always has been. Its been an offiial policy long before any of us have been here. A very strong consensus would be needed to remove it. Moreover I'm sure most people are quotting it becuase it appears at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it is far more prominent. - SimonP 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: If in doubt, don't delete

message: IIDDD is still being refered to as the authoritative pronouncement of deletion policy as at November 8th.  It's clear from the reasoned discussion here that this is false.  As this phrase appears to be confusing people regarding the nuances, I'm removing it pending further discussion. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it.  It is an authoriative statement on deletion policy and always has been. Its been an offiial policy long before any of us have been here. A very strong consensus would be needed to remove it. Moreover I'm sure most people are quotting it becuase it appears at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it is far more prominent. - SimonP 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictum 

message: Someone added this after "if in doubt, don't delete":
: Of course, if you are in doubt that doesn't imply that everyone else is also in doubt. If controversy exists on an article, please discuss at WP:VFU to reach consensus, rather than edit warring between deleted and restored status.
This doesn't seem to make sense.  If the article is not deleted and you're deciding whether to delete it, I can't see how you'd get into this situation by acting on your doubt and failing to delete.  The text seems to me to belong in the undeletion policy (where in fact I believe there is a passage saying you take borderline cases to VFU). I also have problems with policy descriptions that elide difference between undeletion and editing.  --Tony SidawayTalk 12:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic passage

message: Currently entries are being deleted because they aren't deemed notable (e.g. AFD: Apollo 9 (webcomic), AFD: Bored and Evil, AFD:Buddies in Big Places). I haven't been able to find anywhere that says accepted Wikipedia policy that says non-notable pages should be deleted (the only time I could even find the word notable was talking about future events). There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Notability proposal but I'm under the impression that until that is accepted as Wikipedia policy, it shouldn't be used when voting on AFDs. So is non-notability currently a valid reason for deleting articles?--John Lynch 09:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see at Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal this is a pretty controversial area. At the moment there is no explicit notability criteria, however there are also no rules limiting what reasons someone can give for AfDing something. - SimonP 14:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This question comes up often.  Please see this same question (and the detailed responses) here.  The short version is that on Wikipedia, we have found that "notable" is a generally efficient proxy for functionally verifiable.  Non-verifiability is an accepted reason for deletion from the encyclopedia.  By extension, non-notability may (in many but not necessarily all cases) be a legitimate reason for deletion.  Rossami (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about it, but I still don't see how notability can be seen as related to verification. Either something can be verified, or it can't. If it can't be verified at all, then it should be deleted. Notability doesn't need to come into it at all. I looked at the discussion you linked to (and saw your same argument) and I didn't see anything convincing, I also didn't see a consensus to the discussion. If people mean Verifiability when they say notability, then they should say what they mean, so it can be addressed. --John Lynch 07:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But I've yet to see an article deleted for any reason except it violates Wikipedia policy and it's non-notable. People follow Wikipedia policy when creating an article, how are they suppose to know what can be created, if people can delete stuff for whatever reason they want?--John Lynch 07:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I've calmed down a bit, so I've come to discuss the point you raised. So when people say Verifiable they may not actually mean what's in the dictionary. Do they mean what's on the official Wikipedia guideline WP:Verifiability page? Also, the other articles you brought up are good, but don't have anything to do with notability. I don't mind people deleting things for the reasons outlined in those guidelines you linked to. I do, however, mind when notability is used.--John Lynch 05:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *So why is a reason, that isn't in the guidelines, seen as a valid reason?--John Lynch 05:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: **Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: **Isn't that the very definition of "guidelines"?  That it is not restricted to those provided? - Tεxτurε 18:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *But the guidelines I was talking about, were the guidelines to MAKE an article. I really don't see how you can expect people to be happy with deleting articles that don't break Wikipedia guidelines.
*Okay, this is a tricky matter. The first point is that Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, and many guideline pages are running somewhat behind on that, partly because there's way too many of them. The main point is that most people have a general idea of what they consider suitable material for an encyclopedia. There is a bar somewhere, only its location is subjective. People give various reasons and names to this bar, including but not limited to notability, verifiability, importance and interest (and sometimes, suitability to the general public).
*It is really impossible to describe the bar without waxing subjective. However, has been established that Wikipedia shall not contain articles about every person or every webpage on this planet. People have a tendency to write about little-known things that they are themselves familiar with. That is fine as long as it is plausibly also of interest to somebody else. However, such topics may also include their friends, their website, their band, a story they wrote, or a word their classmate made up. And such topics may end up deleted.
*A possible question to ask would be, 'how many people in the world would care about that?' if you take it as a literal question rather than rhetoric. Hollywood celebs? Obviously. Nobel laureates? Yes, the entire scientific community. Pokemon? Surprisingly, millions of fans (and millions more who hate them, but that wasn't the point). Ludicrous internet memes such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Again, surprisingly, tens of thousands of people. Your dog? Er, maybe a dozen people nearby you? A website you like? Consider how many sites you know and how much traffic they all get. Check and compare, and consider that there's literally billions of sites and most are interchangeable.
*I'm afraid it's hard to describe it any better than that as it's really a sliding scale, but some issues are simply off the bar for the consensus. Wikipedia does not work by rules or guidelines, it works by consensus. And consensus has the opinion that a webcomic must have some amount of traffic and recognition before we would write about it. By any other name.
*Hope that helps, and feel free to ask questions or comments etc. Radiant_>|< 01:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Notability and Current Policy

message: Can we come up with some sort of policy for standardizing what the AfD title should be when an article is nominated for a second or later time?  Suppose I have a sizable watchlist, but I think there's reason to think someone may try to delete a particular article; I can put a link to what an AfD for that article should be titled on a page in my userspace and then just check that page, and if any link has turned blue then I know to investigate.
However, what happens if it survives that AfD and someone starts another?  The new AfD might be called "Articles for Deletion/Foo/2"; "Articles for Deletion/Foo 2"; "Articles for Deletion/Foo (2nd nomination)" or other variants.  Even as the first AfD has proved that yes, someone out there thinks it should be deleted and might initiate the process, the lack of any standard naming convention for subsequent AfDs makes it harder to look out for them.
I would propose the +"/2" syntax be the standard; it's easiest to extrapolate (and type) the next in the series and we don't have to worry that there might be a collision between "Articles for Deletion/Foo 2" (a 2nd AfD for the article "Foo") and "Articles for Deletion/Foo 2" (an AfD for the article "Foo 2").  Comments, thoughts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow, pre-emptively watching for potential future deletion nominations just seems ... I'm not sure what word I'm looking for but it doesn't seem right.  If you're that interested in the article, aren't you already watchlisting the article itself?  And wouldn't you therefore see the afd tag when it's added?  I'm not sure I understand yet why you need to watch for the deletion discussion.  Rossami (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The syntax above would create an extra level of sub-page, which I think is undesareable. I recently added a suggestion to the AFD footer to use  in thsi case, which will help with standardization to some extent. Besides i agree with User:Rossami on this. DES (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but many of us have watchlists a thousand articles or more long.  A watchlist will tell you that some change was made to the article.  It won't tell you, unless the AfD notice was the most recent of the changes made (and if the person who placed the AfD notice didn't, ah, "forget" to use the appropriate subject line) that the article is now on AfD.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You seem to be strongly opposed to mentioning the template.  I don't see that it's harmful and it might even be helpful.  We all know you don't think things should be deleted, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  But, you should remember that not everyone agrees with you.  Sometimes things get Afd'd twice for legitimate reasons, so where's the problem?  Friday (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing second, third, AfD headers? 

message: I've added this to the intro.  It's a pivotal point of deletion policy and deserves far more prominence. 
: Many problems that people are tempted to solve by deletion can actually be solved by any editor simply by proper use of normal editing powers. In particular, articles about inconsequential or obscure branches of a subject may be merged with a more substantial article on the subject, or simply redirected if the content is too small. The advantage of this approach over deletion is that it expands the scope of the encyclopedia.
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the (admittedly gigantic) table already, but ok. -Splashtalk 23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it, since people very frequently Afd things that could be redirected or otherwise taken care of.  To me, it's worth a bit of repetition to try to drive home the point. Friday (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just put a big sign, "Hey never delete anything!"  Is there some compelling reason that we need editorialising of this nature in the lead of deletion policy? - brenneman(t)(c) 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, I'm and AfD regular and I don't see that many nominations of this sort.  brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is editorialising, and no, I don't think we need that paragraph, except for the first sentence. It plainly chooses to raise one part of the policy to prominence above others. I, for isntance, and much more concerned about the slack verifiability standards enforced on AfD and would like to see that emphasised more. But I'd be letting my personal preferences creep in, so I won't. -Splashtalk 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Would but that all involved were so circumspect. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (multiple ec) Hmmm, you do have a point there.  I see things that are speediable and things that should just be redirected quite a bit.  I'd like to make it clear to editors that Afd isn't always the best thing to with a junk article, but as you rightly point out, that may be editorializing.   Friday (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: <sarcasm> And I think that we "probably" made a big mistake in not killing the first school article, putting it's head on a spike, and sending it's entrails out to warn off other of its kind. </sarcasm>  However, I'd imagine that policy should be about more than what _I_ want. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Thank you for clarifying your belief that deletion should be used as a deterrent to editors wishing to provide share similar information with users. Kappa 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging and redirecting

message: Based on recent edits, it sure looks like it'd be a good idea for people to get consensus on the talk page before making changes here.  Friday (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But then we might have to do something useful. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the body was still AfD specific, and internally inconsistant.  Changed that. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole lotta revertin' goin' on 

message: This brings us to the question that started all this. Should "if in doubt, don't delete" be placed in WP:DEL and WP:DRV? This seems to be the source of much dispute, but that is only because IIDDD is misunderstood. Personally I will not strongly object with listing the admin reminders on the deletion page, because I know what they are and what they were written to for, and putting them there will not make me treat the article-space policy any less seriously. However, I do see the point that they're out-of-place. WP:DEL is primarily written for users and editors of the encyclopedia, not sysops. Placing IIDDD in such a page, in the way it has been placed there now,  does sound odd—because non-sysops can't delete, whether they are in doubt or not. IIDDD is directed at sysops, the folks who do the deleting. The correct place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it fits perfectly and where it has been placed since the inception of that page. (Yes, it was also in the page that eventually became WP:DEL, but that was when that page was in fact directed at admins. You can read it [http://here.)
What about WP:DRV? The same applies. Wherever the thing is placed however, I would ask that it is not misrepresented, or written in a way that gives a misleading account of article space and deletion policy on Wikipedia. If I've been wrong in any of the above, do correct me—it will not be the first time, nor the last :) I do believe that this issue needn't divide us as it has. Kind regards encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ¹ There is one more class of item that can be deleted from the mainspace and which is not covered in the above policies, and that is the "useless redirect," normally deleted via WP:RFD. I have left it out from the above for simplicity. encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should IIDDD be placed? 

message: I think that removing "if in doubt, don't delete" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how mediawiki databases are organised. We still need to be conservative when deleting. Please check with a developer if you haven't already done so!
Of course, if it turns out that the engine has improved and I'm wrong ... the consequences would be ... interesting. :-) Kim Bruning 03:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the archive weren't a separate table, deletion still would involve preventing non-administrators from seeing and editing articles.  We would still need to be conservative. We shouldn't be deleting anything we're not sure needs deleting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, so it still is a separate table that gets randomly purged, and doesn't get backed up? Kim Bruning 07:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Database organisation 

message: So, for all practicle concerns, we've got ArbCom material over the addition of the words "When restoration was impossible," and "Now however".  Please do let the record show that this dust up began when Tony attempted to subvert consensus.  Oh, and can we all see that several new caveats have crept into the deletion policy's lead paragraph, as well as "If in doubt don't delete" now being boldface?  brenneman(t)(c) 06:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary 

message: (See #Database organisation for context)
People need to come back from nasa-shuttle-disasters-can't-happen/let's-cut-down-the-last-tree-on-easter-island type lala land right now. There has been no back-end change to how deletion has been handled, as far as I'm aware.  No matter how strong you feel consensus is or how large a supermajority you get;  reality will not change. If you are unsure, but still delete, there are odds that actual valuable data will be lost forever. 
If this information has been superseded, please inform me, as that would have several interesting consequences. Kim Bruning 07:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the options are in the table slightly further down. It is uneven to promote one particular part of that table above the others. -Splashtalk 13:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's academic anyway.  Anon's can't now create new articles  so remove what Aaron identifies as new material in the above but retain the rest. Hiding  talk 14:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I'm fine with the removal, but for the time being at least, anons can still write new articles. I just checked myself. -Splashtalk 14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's being turned off today.  Jimbo posted an announcement to the mailing list less than an hour ago.  I don't know that it has showed up on Wikipedia yet, I'm not sure where or even if the information has been placed on Wikipedia. Hiding  talk 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Here  Hiding  talk 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -Splashtalk 15:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous policy change 

message: Would someone please delete Beauxbaton Academy?  It is fictional.  I am brand new, have no idea how to do this, and figure that this will get it done fairly quickly.  Sorry to dump it in here-- please delete this entry when you fix Beauxbaton.  216.185.84.246 03:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Please refer to the Guide to deletion to learn how the process works.  Rossami (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion request

message: Now that the wording of the policy has at least temporarily been settled, I have a purely organizational change to propose.  The subsection now numbered 1.1 "What to do with a problem page/image/category" appears under the section heading "Procedure for deletion". I would propose putting that as its own section, followed by the section "Procedure for deletion" and all of the other subsections, except that I would also move the "See also" subsection to its own section as the more typical style.  As it stands, subsection 1.1 does not seem to fit under the "Procedure" banner. I think that the change would make the policy easier to use for someone looking for guidance.  -- DS1953 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for minor reorganization 

message: There are so many deletion pages and talk pages that I'm not sure where to post this.
The speedy delete pages mention tags but often new pages disappear a few minutes or less than a minute after being created.
Even for a seasoned user like myself this is very confusing. Nothing on my watchlist. A little tiny link saying the page may have been deleted.
I don't want to spend my time looking at delete logs for bad speedy deletes.
Many speedy deletes could be handled by a tag (and maybe deletion of one version of the article.)
I've rewritten advertising articles to real NPOV articles about a company. If the original bad version had not been there the article would never have been written.
Unless there is something that needs to be removed for legal reasons then all deletions should go through a process.
There should always be a tag that shows up on watch lists.
The process of speedy delete deletes the evidence of any problems with speedy and those most likely to be victims of a bad deletion are those least likely to know how to work their way through or have the time to mess with wikipolicy.
--Gbleem 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion surprise 

message: I am not very happy with the introductory paragraphs of the deletion policy. Like any other thing done on Wikipedia, the purpose of the deletion policy is to build an encyclopedia. At the very least, the core policies should be mentioned. At the moment, the introduction mostly cautions against deletion; it could to with a heavy dose of WP:NPOV. Pilatus 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to Deletion Policy 

message: I've written a new policy proposal advocating specific time limits between successive AFD nominations for the same article. Please read it if you have time, and comment. Firebug 03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New deletion policy proposal

message: If the creator of a page repeatedly deleted the speedy delete tags, what is the correct way to respond? In the past, I have listed in as a Quetioned delete on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, or it's become an AfD. If it's a clear speedy candidate, should I ask a random administrator, or stick with Wikipedia:Speedy deletions? Or could someone point me to the guideline for this scenario if one exists please? Thanks. --Whouk (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted speedy tags 

message: There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. If the summary is inaccurate, please improve it rather than removing the template. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not right because we are always willing to revisit a deletion in the light of new information. There does not, I think, exist a one line summary of a subtle and nuanced policy. The template should be removed. (And I don't understand the point of it anyway.)-Splashtalk 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And I removed it until something is worked out: this is an official policy page, that's an inaccurate statement of the policy and it shouldn't appear here until it is accurateified. Discuss it here on talk first. -Splashtalk 17:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Stevage starts with the premise "There being a need for concise one line summaries...".  I question that premise.  I do not see a need for a one line summary.  The only possible summary which is that concise is already on the page - the page title.  The next layer of detail is the introductory paragraph.  Our introductory paragraphs are not always perfectly written but creating an eye-blurring template with a redundant sentence adds nothing of obvious value to the page.  Rossami (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One line summary

message: I regret to point out the Deletion Histories are now only available to Sysops.  Anyone know why? -- Eddie 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brion turned it off until there's a better way to deal with edit summary vandalism.  See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deleted history permissions. —Cryptic (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion History 

message: There is talk on Wikipedia:Consensus concerning the statement that certain Wikiprocesses, in particular WP:RFA and WP:AFD, no longer work on the principle of Consensus, but instead on the principle of Wikipedia:Supermajority, which seems to imply a more-or-less strict numerical limit. I would appreciate it if some AFD regulars would weigh in on the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Consensus to comment on this. Radiant_>|< 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus or Supermajority?

message: Hello everyone! Please review the newly-proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (software).  Your thoughts are much appreciated. --Perfecto  20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For your review: [[Wikipedia:Notability (software)]] 

message: An idea I've been kicking around for a while... it's probably not original, but what the hey.  This is not intended as a proposal (at this time), just a set of talking points.
Often times, in a deletion vote, one prefaces their vote with strong or weak--i.e. weak keep or strong delete.  As far as I can tell, this only is used to indicate the editor's strength of opinion, and has little impact (if any) on how the vote is tallied.
However, it seems to me that there are three types of deletes.  I'm giving them cute names here, but better names can be suggested.  Unlike strong/weak/standard delete, policy might in the future treat these diffently when deciding how to dispose of a XfD.  
* Delete without prejudice:  The article as it stands is wholly unencyclopedic and/or inappropriate, and unsalvageable; so little existing content is worth preserving that were one to do so, all that would be left is a stub.  However, the topic is encyclopedic; so the deletion action should not be construed as a barrier to creation of the article again in the future (with appropriate content).  Obviously, re-creating the article in it's current form isn't acceptable and may be speedy-deleted.  Examples:  Any article on any encyclopedic topic, whose content is crap.
* Delete with prejudice:  The topic of the article is currently unencyclopedic, but may become unencyclopedic in the future.  Re-creation of the article (without being speedied) requires adequate demonstration of why the topic is now appropriate, and/or a VFU.  Examples:  Articles on garage bands (the band might get a record deal in the future), highly speculative articles (which become appropriate as the event in question approaches), original research topics (which become appropriate if the research is published elsewhere and thus no longer in violation of WP:NOR).
* Delete with extreme prejudice:  The topic of the article is unencyclopedic, and likely to remain so for all time.  Re-creation of the article (without being speedied) definitely requires a VFU.  Examples:  Articles whose topic is blatantly POV or nonnsensical.
Note that this taxonomy is orthogonal to the question of speedy vs regular deletion.  An attack article on an otherwise notable subject would be an example of "speedy delete without prejudice", an article on "Reasons George Bush should be impeached" would be a delete with extreme prejudice, but probably wouldn't qualify as a speedy.
--EngineerScotty 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Three Types of Deletion 

message: Recently got into a spat with a user in a talk section, then they come to my project article and AfD it on the basis that it is misnamed and NPOV.
Wikipedia and public opinion
*Article may be misnamed, but does a misnamed article really merit deletion consideration?
*I thought we had an NPOV flag for articles with NPOV problems?
Yeago 15:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article voted for deletion 

message: How are you supposed to handle articles like Redux which were deleted before after a vote, but then were unilaterally re-made?  I'm not sure what the policy would be there. -Elmer Clark 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article Redux is completely unconnected to the article which was deleted. That one was about a fanzine, this one is about a short animated film. If you'd like to have a look, I have temporarily restored it at User:Stormie/Redux. --Stormie 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  previously deleted articles that are re-made 

message: Hello.<BR>
I'm active on the Hebrew Wiki and was trying to translate the article about Savanna. While I was working on the article I've spotted a very possible copyright problem (which I've written about in here). Since I know that the copyright problems are a big issue in Wikipedia, I tried to learn how to deal with it in here (ie: En. Wiki) - but I've failed to understand.
As you might have understood already, I read English quite well, so this is not a case of a language block. The problem I had was that there is no simple explanation on how to react to such issues. I had to scroll all the way down in the Community Portal in order to find something that talks about the subject - and that article was no good to me. I had to go here, then scroll down the page in order to find the table which read "Problems that may require deletion". But all I've found there was the template to use - but what else should I do? So I had to scroll further down and read more passages and go to more references. I'm not a lazy reader, but it is hard to understand a procedure from so many different pages.
I finally gave-up. Instead, I wrote about the problem in the discussion for the article. Now, while I am writing this post, not minutes after I've posted the original problem, I was answered and helped - but it would be better if I could have understood the policy by myself.
If I may suggest a few things to improve the system:
* The Common Procedures, as listed in the Community Portal, should be a bit more accessible to the users. There is a-lot of information on the portal and one must search through it all in order to find a common procedure.
* In deleting a page (as under Common Procedures) there should be, right at the beginnig, a list of links with wording akin to "about copyright problems deletion", "about Inappropriate user pages deletion", "about not suitable articles deletion" etc..
* From these links, the user should go to a page where he can find (if he was interested in copyright problems, for example): A. What is a copyright problem; B. What is not a copyright problem; And C. How to deal with a copyright problem.
* The last part - about how to deal with the problem should be a problem-specific solution, unlike the general Template:AfD in 3 steps explanation.
I hope you may consider these suggestions. Havelock 21:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you had trouble finding it.  You should have been immediately directed to Wikipedia:Copyright problems which, I think, answers your questions.  (The shortcut that's easiest for me to remember is wp:copyvio.)  I suspect that you had trouble finding the answers you needed on the deletion-related pages because deletion is not the first line of defense against a copyright violation.  We don't generally resort to deletion until we have exhausted other options such as contacting the copyright holder to request permission, etc.  (There are some exceptions which are immediately deletable which, I admit, does confuse the issue.)  Once you've gotten to the deletion step, you are correct that the only real answer is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.  I think the Deletion policy page and even the CopyVio page are well linked on the Article for deletion page but if you have recommended improvements to the linking, please be bold and make the changes.  I would recommend some caution against expanding those pages, though.  They are considered by many to be too complex already.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to alert about copyright problems? 

message: I often watch Special:New Pages for a variety of reasons, one of which is to look for articles that have no place in Wikipedia.  However, what looks at first like an article that should be deleted, is sometimes an article that is being created in stages by a well-meaning writer.  It would be useful to me to have a Special:Seven Day Old category that I could watch instead.  This tool would be useful to me because it would put these articles in one watch list for me, but not when they are brand-spanking new and the author may still be trying to get the first decent draft done.
I'm considering suggesting this as a software enhancement, and I wonder if other editors would find this feature useful? Johntex\talk 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature request suggestion

message: What is the policy regarding AfD. I understand editors are invited to vote Keep-Delete. But what if they use invalid argunents violating Problems that don't require deletion.? Nomen Nescio 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AFD policy.  Rossami (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD policy

message: The policy regarding time limits between nominations is currently a wee bit fuzzy. Currently, there is little defence against multiple (more or less) bad-faith noms by editors opposed to the article (or, more usually, opposed to an article's subject). I had a look at Firebug's proposal above; it's pretty harsh. My idea for a compromise would be something along the lines of requiring a renominator to EXPLICITLY state reasons for the renomination (ie what's changed to the article or context since the last nom). Where no reason is given, or where an admin can clearly justify that the reasoning is false or flawed, the article will automatically be speedily kept. Within a three-month (or so- entirely negotiable) period, ANY subsequent renoms should only be done by an admin, albeit potentially through the (reasoned) request of a non-admin. I don't mean to add to the morass of policy we already have, but this issue is one that causes some problems and backlog on AfD and is one that surely can easily be addressed by a simple rewording of the current deletion protocol. This isn't new policy, it's better policy. What d'y'all think? Badgerpatrol 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real need to codify this, as it already happens. When people repeatedly nominate an article for deletion, as with the oft-cited GNAA, it is already quickly speedy kept for WP:POINT violation. I think this would just be instruction creep. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure- GNAA is an obvious example, but there are numerous others where WP:POINT nominations are the norm and are not picked up as Speedy Keeps. The basic plank of what I am saying is merely that in order to renominate within a certain amount of time, editors simply be required to explicitly state what has changed since the last nomination. See here for a related discussion. Badgerpatrol 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renoms

message: Making the following (or something like it) deletion policy may calm the few remaining Userbox Warriors. 
:Many Wikipedians disapprove od user pages templates that are frivolous or which express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. They may be perceived as unencyclopedic, or as condoning partisan behavior. It is always in order to suggest that such templates be substituted into user pages; or to reword them in a non-partisan fashion (for example, replacing This user likes x with This user is interested in X). If this fails, they can be listed at Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion; a consensus shall delete them if they are harmful to the project. 
Cooments? Septentrionalis 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Some other discussions have linked templates and their related categories - advocating the deletion of both.  How does this proposal relate to categories, particularly those of the form, "Wikipedians interested in X"? Rfrisbietalk 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is a rediculous idea for a very simple reason. If you are new and unsure and in a deletion battle without any idea why so many people are ganging up on you, you are likely to put comments on your own user page to explain who you are (so that the preditors stop seeing you as some nerd trying to push an idea and finally understand you just started from the point of view and want some help). Once you start telling people they can't put their personality on the user page you are making everyone appear as clones - disposable clones - people without feelings - people who you can just say "delete" and they won't be extremely upset that they are being victimised as a newcomer. Also, it does help to know the kind of person who is making comments. If just anybody was to say "democracy is not founded on equality" that is predi-juice, if they happen to be a Greek Scholar with knowledge of isonomia and demcocratia, then they might have a point. --Mike 09:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additon

message: I'm currently attempting to get some consensus regarding handling speedy keeps of recently-nominated AfDs: Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep#Possible_Guideline_Addition?  As few people look at WP:SK, I'm hoping to get a few more eyes on it so it isn't controversial. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Keep Guideline addition 

message: What the difference between CAT:CSD and WP:SD, And why does neither link to each other, when they both do the same thing in a different way? Pardon my newbieness of course. --DennyCrane 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion Confusion 

message: I don't know if any one can help but I've speedied a couple of pages and the users who made the pages or other users removed the tags. I added  to the page Jack Faber and Vissenaken. And the tags have been removed thanks for the help. Whispering 05:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Whispering! In both instances the Speedies were removed by an administrator. This is because the Admin most likely thought they did not meet the requirements for a Speedy Delete. And I would have to also agree with that judgement, as there are many stub like articles out there which would be very usefull if they were expanded and thus should remain to encourage others to add content. If you feel the article should still be deleted, you should go for an WP:AFD. Whereby a consensus is called on to whether or not the article should be removed.--DennyCrane Talk 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help anyone? 

message: Sakina bint Husayn’s page should be deleted because there are two pages about binte Hussain (Sakina bint Husayn and Sakina binte Hussain). Sakina binte Hussain is more popular and more informational page then Sakina bint Husayn. The two pages (Sakina binte Hussain and Sakina bint Husayn) are about the same girl. So I think Sakina bint Husayn should be deleted because it contains less information and less contributors then other article (Sakina binte Hussain). Thank you Salman
:There's no need to delete in this case. Instead, you can simply replace the short page's contents with "#REDIRECT Sakina binte Hussain" and turn it into a redirect page. That way anyone who searches for her or links to her with the other spelling will be automatically sent to the correct one. I'll do that now. Bryan 05:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone please delete the [[Sakina bint Husayn]] page