Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 7

message: As you (SHOULD!) know, deleting an article costs additional time and resources. Typically at least as much as the original article cost. 
So if you've been going around deleting stuff just to save time and effort, you're wrong, stop deleting right now. :-P
Anyway, a recent deletion debate turned up that some people aren't aware of the costs and manpower required to deal with (re)nominations, so I added a short phrase about that, without judging either way.
Kim Bruning 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renomination and resources 

message: *Biggish change
I'd like to see some more discussion on this change, it's a bit big. - brenneman {L} 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggish change 

message: I tried to edit this page to reflect the change in policy on   changing to  but I didn't understand what the tlp tag meant in the edit page.  Could someone make the change and explain what it means?  Thanks!  JamieJones  talk 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just learned this one myself. Instead of using  tags around a tag you wish to refer to (rather than transclude), you can use the  tag in this form: {{tl|name-of-template-to-not-transclude}}, which produces the template with double-curly-braces and an internal link to the template itself.
To make :
 {{tl|prod}}
which essentially is the same as using
 <nowiki>{{prod}}
*BigNate37T·C 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I'd like to make a complaint about people that are way too fast to use the Delete Template. I was just putting up James Madison DeWolf, and someone put up a Delete template LITERALLY within a minute! I didn't even have time to access the page a second time! And this is not unique- I've seen several deletes posted in just the time it took me to go to the restroom and come back. Whatever you think of the particular articles, this is way too speedy. There should be a minimum length of time to fairly give the poster a chance to eat, go to the restroom, access a source or whatever before some Net Nanny freaks out. CFLeon 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (but the comment should be in proportion to the effort/newness of the author') 
#If the content may warrant deletion but it is possible the title may be good for an article, I proposed a: A Request to rewrite 
;A Request to rewrite
My personal opinion is that unless an article meets a criteria for speedy deletion or is posted by a seasoned author, then authors objecting to the deletion should be able to get the deletion notice removed and have it replaced with a time limited "Request for rewrite".
In addition the request to rewrite (and deletion notices) should go to a help page which explains:
#How to request help ({ { helpme } } -it may sound obvious but it isn't - and when you are new and spending 90% of your time trying to work out how to make bold and have one evening before the deletion date to finish the article ..... trying to find out how to get help is a nightmare!) 
#How to "deal" with a request to delete. 
##How to get it removed so that you can see what you are editing 
##How to use an { { under construction } } notice! 
##How to get it removed so that those involved have an incentive to work on the article 
##How to change it into a request to rewrite 
#How to move to home test-pages (not the kid's sandpit) 
#A simple explanation of the deletion discussion. 
#How to speedy delete your own article 
#A link to some common "templates" for articles by which I mean: User:Haseler/template 
#How to change the name of an article to make it less "contentious" 
#How to explain the purpose of an article which is under construction so that the article is considered for its purpose rather than the current state of editing 
Now if someone wants to reply "all they have to do is just look in" .... I have a simple reply, I never found it and if I can't find it why should any other newcomer?
--Mike 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too-fast Deleters?

message: I should append that last statement--it's not an attack on Tony (although I *do* strongly disagree with many of his viewpoints on process). Any "system" of this size, complexity, and magnitude depends on process. From the government to corporate settings, an established procedure and workflow is critical to ensuring that everything remains on the up and up, and that nothing can fall through the cracks. At worst, if *EVERYTHING* were done by the book, is that you'd get a backlog on some relative queues of work, but that again is a self correcting thing. As they back up, more people could become admins to help in turn keep up. Bypassing or "pissing" on the process and systems that 99.9% of the users of Wikipedia rely and expect for expediency is a HORRENDOUS idea and attitude for anyone to have. It leads to pointless fights, hurt feelings, and endless ill will. 
In the case of erring on the side of Keep for deletions, this is not a bad thing--if you AfD and in 48 hours you have 90 people saying Keep and one lone voice saying to nuke the article, you might as well keep. However, if it's a possible no concensus either way, or a possible delete, it MUST run out the duration. What does it honestly hurt to do that? Keeping it "by the books" ensures that no one can complain: it was done by the books. And no, Tony, I can see you gearing up to type it--this does not give anything to the trolls. It disarms them, if they are trolls, since they can't cry foul. If the community BY IT'S OWN RULES says "You're out", you're out, and that's that. 
I suspect that some people may be in favor of bypassing process--not naming names--or general procedure to see their own personal ideals, ends, desires, and vision of the project wrought or brought about. However, this is a Very Bad Idea. No one man or woman's vision is relevant in the end beside Jimbo's; everything else should be consensus. If all the people discussing this say that concensus is you "do it by the book", well, then, anyone who bypasses that should be set to be held accountable. There is oversight for perceived bad deletions, as there should be, but there should also be a firm, committed, and iron clad committment to err in the side of keeping at all times. At worst, you'll have to wait another day or four, and at best, if you have a vested personal interest to see an article 'gone', it'll be gone anyway by the book, with no wiggle room for complaint, if you do it RIGHT. 
I honestly recommend that it be set as a policy that WP:SNOW be judged 100% inappropriate for anything as an AfD, or No Concensus. It should only be even considered or allowable as practice when the final closing will be clear keep, never othewise. Deleting content from Wikipedia is a very serious business, and if something is up for AfD rather than Speedy or Prod, there's a good reason for it be up for discussion in all likelihood. It's foolhardy and irresponsible to torch content that can be worthwhile or possibly rehabilitated to "piss on the process". As an addendum, I propose that with this adjustment to policy it be ALSO policy that any inappropriate and premature closings as a matter of policy by reversed and reopened to run correctly. There's no good reason to just torch something--I mean, literally, in the fifth day and 23rd hour someone could make a compelling argument of such clarity and insight that it could sway the closing admin one way or the other--it would be wrong and unfair for both inclusionists and deletionists to simply deny them that right and oppurtunity in the spirit of "Faster Pussycat, Delete Delete." 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to consider for both sides 

message: I added Proposed Deletion to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed table, as it only listed AfD as a method of deleting articles.  Some of the long time policy articles still haven't been updated to include PROD deletion, this was one of them.  --Xyzzyplugh 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem articles where deletion may be needed

message: is there a page specifically devoted to notability requirements for video game characters, old TV series, etc.?  wikipedia seems totally stuffed with such crud.  e.g. i was surprised to see a prominent mention on Gypsy (Fleetwood Mac song) to the "fact" that this song appeared in a single episode of "Knight Rider" -- and even more surprised to see the *endless* reams of drivel written about that show (which ran only between 1982-1986, for god's sake!).  do we really need an article about FLAG, the organization that Michael Knight worked for; Garthe Knight, his occasional doppelganger; KARR, his car's nemesis; the plot of every single episode List of Knight Rider episodes, etc. etc.?  similarly, when i tried typing "zero" with the expectation of a disambig page with a clear link to the japanese fighter plane, i instead got an endless list of characters from video games and tv series i've mostly never even heard of. (the link to the plane was about the 50th entry before i moved it up.) i'd suggest a page specifically about fictional shows, games, etc. that tries to get people to think twice or three times before posting. (one possible criterion: imagine someone reading wikipedia 20 years from now, do you think anyone would possibly care about this?  if not, probably doesn't belong.) Benwing 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For episodes of TV shows, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, which suggests that individual TV episodes only have their own article if there's enough verifiable stuff that can be said about them. Otherwise, the content should be merged.  JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  video game characters and such drivel? 

message: We are having a bit of a brawl over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. Many feel this entire nomination is bad faith, and the original nominator has even pulled out. How do I go about getting the nomination strikken, as this entire AfD is wrong. After the nomination went up, people started adding new articles to the list which gives no concise way for people to vote, as new things are added. Most, if not all, are major characters inn the Warcraft universe, and as such work in accordance with WP:FICT. The admin who re-opened the nomination stated that it was heading for "deletion" which I don't see. And nominating that many articles is plain wrong, seeing as there is no way to keep track of how the vote is being counted and which of the articles should be exempt from the vote. I don't think editors who vote "delete", actually read all the articles nominated. And as such have no idea which of the articles are major or not, or if they should be keept or not. This entire vote is messy, and should anyone want to nominate characters for deletion, they should do so individual. Havok (T/C/c) 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith nomination 

message: This keeps coming up - all over Wikipedia are people whose only noteworthy aspect is that they were a contestant on Survivor or some other show.  I understand if you won, and even if you are a runner-up, but that being the only noteworthy thing in your history, well, I don't see it.  But I'm open to being swayed.  Is this an old discussion?  What is the consensus?  --DavidShankBone 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they have non-trivial mentions in the media? Are they famous for more than just their appearance on the show, and thus worth having their own article? Are they making the article too long by their inclusion? That'd be a start, and none of those are specific to reality TV.  -- nae'blis 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  Take Rafe Judkins, where one person in the discussion page made the point that his inclusion seemed merited by the fact he is was the first gay Mormon on the show - he was voted out early.  External links include one to his brother's website.  Eliza Orlins's only noteworthy attribute is that she was on the show, although some well-wisher has included her study abroad and Key Club awards to argue for her merit as an encylopedia entry; and then there's Ami Cusack whose only other noteworthy aspect is that she appeared in a Playboy spread (before the show).  I realize some of these people may have a fan base, but I don't see evidence of it, nor that this alone merits inclusion.  Cindy Hall didn't even make the final four and is a zookeeper.  Morgan McDevitt has nothing noteworthy.  However, Gary Hogeboom was an NFL  quarterback.  Fine.  But this is quickly going to get out of hand, if it has not already.  These very entries are handled perfectly well by the ABC homepage (if not better).  Guidance?--DavidShankBone 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with nae, their notability should be tied to how many non-trivial references they have in the media, perhaps regarding controversial aspects of their participation in the show. This whole conversation assumes non-notability for anything else, naturally. (I don't believe their religion or sexual persuasion qualifies as "notability" on its own, either.)Michael Dorosh 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. But I disagree with nae - if they're on the show, they very, very notable, and they really should have individual articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality Television Contestants

message: Hi.
Curiosity question: If I have a good enough reason to re-create a deleted *and* protected page, can I do it myself? Can you grant temporary adminship/unprotecting to allow for such a thing, if you agree that the reasons I give are good enough?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.199.173 (talk • contribs) 
:The best way to go would be to create a username (it takes seconds of your time), go to User:Yourusername/sandbox, create your proposed article there, and then convince someone it should replace the protected deleted page notice.   Jkelly 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it depends on being able to "convince" somebody -- and if they have some sort of bias against the attempt (even if the proposal is good and would actually be acceptable under the rules), then I still couldn't do it. That sucks ****. Then again, it would also apply to the ideas of getting temporary adminship or unprotection as well. But thanks for the answer anyway. (Original poster) 70.101.145.181 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't another alternative be to re-create the article in a User sandbox (as above), and then bring the original deletion to Wikipedia:Deletion review and provide a wikilink to the replacement article? That way, it's not one person's opinion; a consensus would be obtained.—Chidom talk  01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if it's uncontroversial, try any one admin (or just post on the talk page of the deleted page, and hope). If you run into opposition, take it to Deletion Review or reconsider your page creation. :) -- nae'blis 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected deleted pages 

message: I've just run across a page that was Speedy Deleted by a user who is only identified by an IP address. I would think that this wouldn't be possible; if users without accounts can't create pages, how do they delete them? I don't disagree with the deletion; I just wonder about the methodology.—Chidom talk  16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging an article to speedy deletion is a normal edit, and anonymous editors may edit pages. But deleting is possible only by administrators; the log is here. (AFAIK only registered may become administrators) googl t 16:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of deleting administrator 

message: While reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viceroy seeds, it occurred to me that for Wikipedia to publish this in my country is illegal. Allowing the information to be downloaded is publication according to the law of both the US and Australia. In future we ought to be able to do something about this. If someone were to publish methods of committing suicide or images of child pornography on wikipedia, that too would be illegal. - Richardcavell 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the servers are in the States, I don't think it matters what is illegal elsewhere. More to the point, we can't track every nation's laws and admins looking after CSD pages would not be able to easily verify whether it is, in fact, illegal in country X. Further, if the material is illegal, fix it! Then nominate it for deletion, but there is no rule saying you can't cut out the child porn and bomb-making instructions first. CSD isn't the right way to deal with these matters. If your removal of illegal or illegitimate material is being reverted, or if it is grossly inappropriate and should not be on the history even, perhaps it should be brought up on WP:AN/I. BigNate37(T) 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only way to fix the article I named is to delete the whole damn thing. If someone posted an advert soliciting mail orders for child porn, I think that it would get deleted because it offends people. The fact that the material is on US servers is not relevant; under both US and Australian law, it's published where it is downloaded. - Richardcavell 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article you use as an example should be deleted but as spam, not because it happens to be illegal in your country. First the practical issues.  Almost everything is illegal somewhere and legal somewhere else.  If we tried to dumb Wikipedia down to the lowest common denominator, we'd have almost nothing left.Second, your statement that "it's published where it is downloaded" is an untested and controversial assertion in law and is not to the best of my limited knowledge, the law in the US.  Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union in particular seems to dispute that point.  US court decisions on the applicability of local obsenity standards to downloaded materials are also unclear.  IANAL but from what I've read, the general rule in both US and international law is that you have to have some sort of presence in the jurisdiction to be subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.  Amazon.com can be sued in the states where they house their servers, their warehouses, etc.  If they have no physical presence in Alabama and don't do any business there, they can't be legitimately sued there.  Likewise in the international arena, something may be illegal in North Korea but unless the organization has a physical presence in the country, any judgment is going to be moot.  If you're really concerned about the legality of a particular point, though, the right answer is to contact our legal office directly.  Dealing with such issues through the community-driven deletion process is no guarantee that the consensus decision would match the relevant law.  The whole question is really outside the scope of this policy.  Rossami (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone to AfD and been speedy deleted.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viceroy seeds Tyrenius 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting illegal material 

message: Considering my own experience with deletionists and my experience as a mergist, I offer the ManyBytesAgo wiki as a substitute home. I've already petitioned meta for an Interwiki address, and I've implemented existing Interwiki addressing on the site. Cwolfsheep 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offering a home for unwanted content 

message: Unfortunately, as thousands of articles, categories, photos, lists etc are being deleted or renamed, it is becoming increasingly rare to find editors (who make the nominations to delete or rename) follow the normal courtesy of contacting the original creators of articles and categories, and often articles and categories are deleted or renamed without the input of their creators or from those editors who know more about the subject and contents of the articles and categories. I speak from experience because these acts breed uncalled for enmity between otherwise well-meaning editors. Somehow, a way has to be found to stress and publicize the Wikipedia guidelines which is clearly stated below in a few places:
#Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating a proposed deletion point number 3: Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use  
#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use  (for creators who are totally new users),  (for creators), or  (for contributors or established users).
#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes: When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use  for this.
All suggestions as to how to improve the present situation should be welcomed and popularized. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IZAK 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not post the same discussion in three places. You've also brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored and Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. BigNate37(T) 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least four: Wikipedia talk:AfD categories#Informing the creators is being ignored. --ais523 17:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By my count, it was cross-posted to 18 different discussion pages.  All have now been consolidated to here.  Rossami (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * So post a link, rather than saying the same things several times and ending up with a fragmentary discussion. Guy 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not post the same discussion in three places. You've also brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Informing the creators is being ignored. BigNate37(T) 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BigNate: Hi again: As I have stated, this is a widespread problem and not everyone reads or notices the same discussion pages. There is no other way to bring this issue to wider audiences than by placing it on those Talk pages that are devoted to this. You can't limit it. Rather than focusing on the posts, why not let us know what your thoughts are about how to deal with the problem. I have mentioned to another editor that perhaps the solution is to follow the example of the guys at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion who have become very efficient at letting users know that images will be zapped unless copyright info will be added quickly. Ideally, it should be Admins who ensure that before they zap articles or categories that the original creators of articles and categories have been informed on their talk pages. Follow the example of the "Images and media" editors and create a special template that could be easily placed on an editor's page to let him know that an article he has worked on is about to be deleted and would he and other experts on the topic care to respond before it's too late and the article is blown away. Let's focus on the substance of the issues here please. Thanks. IZAK 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: IZAK, if we have a template with spots that must be filled in for each deletion nomination, maybe we could make sure that creators are informed.   The template could have a spot for a "diff" showing the creator has been informed.  Justforasecond 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justforasecond: Firstly, let me say that I have already suggested the creation of a template to deal with this (see below) however I am not a "techie" so I can neither follow your technical jargon let alone put it into effect. Thanks. IZAK 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's time to raise the profile of this issue, so that at least Admins can be aware of it and they should be the ones to ask and ensure that the original editors have been informed before they finally zap an article or category. I must say the guys over at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion have been very good at this over the last year or two. I used to complain to them in the olden days when they just came along and zapped things without notice, and at least now they have their fancy templates with warnings they put on users' talk pages that either you get the copyright info on a picture or it's gotta go. We need that same level of efficiency and accountabilty all around, otherwise a lot of people will be getting madder and madder as time rolls on. Take care. IZAK 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Allow to illusrate a common action of 'informing' the creator of a prod on an article:
* Article is prodded
* Creator informed.
* Creator removes prod tag with no explanation shortly after.
* Article sent to AfD.
* Unanimous, save for occasionally the article creator, to delete the article.
* Sometimes:
** AfD tag is removed expecting the same action as the removal of the prod tag.
** A slew of sockpuppets attack the AfD discussion.
* Article deleted.
* And sometimes:
** Creator goes to DRV
** near-unanimously at AfD
This is very common with vanity-style articles that don't meet A7 criteria.  Why clog AfD for really obvious vanity?  For this, I'm very against forced informing of the creator of an article for proposed deletion, AfDs already crazy workload would go up like mad.  Kevin_b_er 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Where this discussion seems to have startedUser_talk:ThuranX#Your_past_nominations_to_rename_.28Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy.29. CovenantD 07:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that it 'started' there so much as he put the first iteration of his Wiki-wide posting there. I'm not happy about it, either. However, I must take responsibility for this. I put two categories that IZAK apparently helped create up for renaming. The categories were Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 7#Category:Jewish Islam topics to :Category:Judeo-Islamic topics and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 20#Category:Jewish Christian topics to :Category:Judeo-Christian topics. I followed the CfD(rename) procedure on the page properly. The debates were open for a reasonable length of time. the first had more discussion than the second, since the topic had been covered. IZAK took offense that I didn't wade through the history to figure out what editors were the 'creators'. I didn't think I had to, as per WP:OWN, which has already been brought up. ThuranX 02:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Notice to author(s) has always been a courtesy, not a requirement. Its good to do, but in no way needed to assure a fair deletion process. There are more than enough people picking apart AFD listings as it is, we don't need another requirement here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you guys should *always* inform the creators that their work is being deleted. If it was vandalism, I'd skip the couresy. However, by not informing the main editors of that article, you are not giving proper chance for the CSD, AfD, or whatever, to be contested - or reasons to be given on their behalf. In my opinion, many administrators on wikipedia think that their time is an order of magnitude more important than other editors - and so courtesy is left to the wind. Fresheneesz 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion: I generally inform the creator on A7 and G8 speedies (A7 due to the hope I'm wrong, G8 to stop them doing it again), and debates where the creator may help to explain what's going on (for instance, an apparently worthless category or template). Usually, I don't inform on newly created articles being AfDd or prodded unless the article is quite old; in such cases, if the creator doesn't even bother to check back within five days, the article probably isn't worth much anyway. I do inform if I think there is a resonable chance of the creator !voting delete (it happens). --ais523 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles should basically be good enough to persuade people of their merits of themselves. All the relevant information should already be in the article. There should be no need for anyone to 'defend' them. The Land 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a long discussion so I appologize if my point has already been made. If someone created a page, and cares about what happens to it, it will default to their watch-list unless they decide to turn it off. Since the procedure indicates that an edit should contain "nom for deletion" if it is tagged, I would think that the creator, if they care about the article should already be watching it (if they don't want it deleted, they probably don't want it vandalized either, which involves watching). That's just my personal opinion. TheHYPO 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "it will default to their watch-list" - most newbs don't know about that watch list - and some, like me, hardly ever use it. Fresheneesz 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what point you trying to make. Watchlists are a far better alternative to notifying every potentially involved person in the case of a *fD. If you choose not to use a tool that is available to everyone, that does not mean other editors must manually alert you to significant developments in content you are concerned about. It's similar to asserting that one is free to not sign comments because other editors should be reading the talk page history anyways. As far as new editors go, I don't expect the newbies have that much difficulty remembering what few if any articles they've created. The fact remains that the suggestion to notify editors involved is a noble one, but one which is not suitable for mandatory deletion policy. BigNate37(T) 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, the Getting Started tutorial doesn't actually tell newbies about the watch list (it's under the top 10 power tools, but that doesn't really help a newbie), so having the power tool tips be in the getting started may be a good idea?  ColourBurst 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you put a link up to the getting started tutorial? I don't recall seeing it. FWIW, I started using the watchlist because it's linked at the top of the window between my preferences and my contributions and has a checkbox under the edit summary. BigNate37(T) 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be at Help:Contents/Getting_started.  It is in the tips section, but again, a new editor wouldn't go through the tips section meticulously.  ColourBurst 01:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a case-by-case thing. There's obviously no reason to nominate the creator for an attack or vandalism page, a string of random text, or whatever. The point of CSD is a lightweight process for eradicating obviously useless material. For material that a user might reasonably believe would be an appropriate addition, it's more appropriate to warn them properly. This would apply I would think to many PRODs and A7 CSDs. AfDs of older articles usually affect more experienced editors and so would be caught by the watchlist. Deco 06:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a very nice idea. It would give the projects, which may have additional insight into the matter at hand, a better chance of responding.--Bookandcoffee 05:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: * Can a bot be written to contact the related project and leave a message on the talk page. These days, many projects are embracing project banners for WP1.0. The bot can look at the project banner and find the project's talk page or a sub-page (deletion sorting page) under the project and add a comment about the prod. Vandalism bots are already doing this kind of reporting. Can something similar be done with AFD and PROD reporting too? (following is optional) I am thinking further, let us say, the talk page has not been tagged yet with a banner. Bot can look at words in the article to decide which project to contact. For example, If it finds India in the article, it will contact India project. Please comment on this. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very nice idea. It would give the projects, which may have additional insight into the matter at hand, a better chance of responding.--Bookandcoffee 05:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contacting related projects using a bot

message: * Similar to what I mentioned above, a bot can find the last 10 editors of an article and contact them with PROD and AFD messages. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contacting last 10 editors using a bot

message: I'm curious if articles in the Project Namespace are susceptible for deletion. The reason I ask is regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Calendar. I just don't see the purpose of having a birthday calendar on Wikipedia. Figured I'd ask around for precedent before I do something not permitted. JPG-GR 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Project namespace pages are generally within the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.  Rossami (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Namespace Deletion Policy 

message: I think that an article should exist for awhile before being nominated for deletion. People need to have some time to add to an article before being nominated for deletion. There should be something in the policy about checking the date of creation. --Gbleem 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A ten to thirty minute maturing period would be a good idea for some types of speediable content like those articles lacking a claim of notability, but extra wait is undesireable for attack pages and vandalism. Oh, I assume you specifically mean articlespace? Redirects probably wouldn't get more "content" contributed to them if left for a few more minutes before being deleted. BigNate37(T) 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends on the article. Some deserve to be deleted ASAP. But yes, an article which is a small stub, but where the creator is still working on (doing it in multiple saves) and is immediately tagged as speedy delete one minute after creation. That's way too fast. I've seen it once where the editor gave up after the hangon tag and was never seen on wikipedia since. Garion96 (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets brought up a lot.  There are problems with it, though:  First, a significant percentage of the articles that get deleted come straight out of newpage patrol.  The ability to tag pages for some form of deletion straight off of special:newpages is essential to newpage patrolling; often there's nothing else that would call such a page to anyone's attention for a long while after it falls off of that list.  This often results in people making many edits to articles that will plainly never be encyclopedic, causing far more bad blood when the article is eventually found and deleted than it would have caused if it was deleted back when it was just three lines.  Second, requiring newpage patrollers to note obvious deletion candidates as they appear and then go back to nominate them thirty minutes later is a much bigger ball of red tape than you might think it is; it's hard enough to keep an eye on newpages as it is.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, for prods and AfDs the thirty-minute delay being suggested here is meaningless when compared to the five days articles spend in those processes before actually being deleted; while speedies are supposed to be non-contestable and without salvagable content. Anything that anyone would have added in the thirty-minute 'grace' period being suggested here could still be added at any time during the relevant five days; AfD is usually quite good about coping with that. --Aquillion 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time elapsed since creation 

message: One thing that bothers me about the deletion process which I have seen with respect to many pages is the relatively easy deletion of pages that have been constructed with much work.  It seems like most of the pages that are deserving of deletion are the opposite, for example company marketing information usually comes in one quick post from a single source and has no references or discussion, but then wikipedians must coordinate to get the stuff deleted.  When pages that multiple contributors have worked hard on are removed after only a quick discussion and some clicks it seems unjust and like some more--more notifications, more time, something--should be required.
Those who are most interested in deleting understand the five day limit works in their favor and set up deletions at late weekend or early weekday times to avoid real review of their actions.  Causual deleters are currently running amok on wikipedia.  It does not seem right that hard work should be easy to delete, especially without interacting with contributors.  There should be some kind of handshake process where by the creators are notified and have a real opportunity to respond.  The case of pages that have been labored over is different from the majority of spam that needs to be deleted. -- M0llusk 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some relative effort metric?