![]() | This article provides encyclopedic coverage of a notable aspect of Wikipedia and is not intended to act as guidance (from a practical standpoint of an editor). For Wikipedia's policies on deletion see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. To ask questions about current policy go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). |
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | A fact from Deletion of articles on Wikipedia appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I moved the hatnote to Wikipedia:Deletion policy to external links. Wikipedia has adopted a few unfortunate penchants, one is the liberal use of hatnotes for nearly anything. A hatnote to Deletion policy is an editor aid, and putting it the article prime real estate is to value the editor over the reader. While editors may be worth more than readers, this should never be the signal on an article header. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I can immediately see that it is a challenge to write the content based on external sources, as opposed to the expert knowledge editors have on the topic. I didn’t get involved in the Truth vs Verifiability battle, but this is a small example of its application. We know the truth about Wikipedia deletion processes, but what is verifiable from third party sources? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The content seems to deal with enwiki, and not with Wikipedia globally. While other languages generally have speedy deletion and AfD, only a few have DRV for example. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyediting the first paragraph, resectioning, adding notable deletions... all of these are mere suggestions. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Should we have the RevDel section? It seems a bit out of scope for the article title. I suppose that's also true of the brief mentions of other XfD procedures, but those are at least analagous to the AfD process, with RevDel being something categorically different. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Alalch Emis: - I guess the question is what the scope of this article is. For me, the Pierre Sur Haute affair would be like linking an excerpt from Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the article Health effects of tea. Yes, if you drink poisoned tea you might die or get sick, but that's not really the subject of the article - it's about normal tea drinking. Besides, this deletion lasted like one hour. It had absolutely nothing to do with AFD discussions or Wikipedia policies or PRODs (aka what is discussed earlier in the article). Someone reading this article is interested in the community process for deletion of Wikipedia articles, in my opinion, not external actors who somehow delete an article akin to the poison in the tea. Attempting to cover strictly "was the deletion button pressed" is the wrong focus IMO - something like a radioactively controversial AFD with coverage in reliable sources that was ultimately closed as "keep" might well be in scope for this article, while an administrator account getting hijacked and deleting a page briefly is really the topic of Vandalism on Wikipedia, and the Pierre Sur Haute incident is really part of Censorship of Wikipedia. This article should be on the topic of Deletion of articles on Wikipedia by Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia community discussions for a specific scope of coverage. (I am kidding with the title.)
On similar grounds, I'd argue that the "Wikipedia art" excerpt is shaky as well. It's at least more related to the topic but I wouldn't be sorry to see it replaced with something more relevant. On the other hand, the Clarice Phelps incident is exactly on point - a deletion discussion deleted the article, there was coverage of it, the article stayed deleted for more than a year, it led to both debate on the guidelines as well as additional third-party coverage. SnowFire ( talk) 20:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
an edible basidiomycete mushroomincluding information on the deadly poisonous destroying angel (Amanita sp.) To understand what the edible mushroom is, we also talk about what it is not. The community reacted to the outside disruption by restoring the article. The fact that deleted articles are not permanently lost and can be restored is given quite a bit of prominence in the article. The article seems to have been undeleted which is a core aspect of deletion processes as a whole. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, but if this article's scope is going to include out-of-process deletions, I included it in the "main" list of types, as well as an example of what BD2412 described of random vandals blanking pages. Also moved the Pierre Sur Haute example to the new section and chopped it down, don't think we need as many details as the original excerpt had. I will say that the "office actions" bit sourcing isn't great at the moment, just a primary source link, but office actions that aren't Framgate don't tend to get much news media coverage. SnowFire ( talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Created by BD2412 ( talk) and Alalch Emis ( talk). Nominated by BD2412 ( talk) at 02:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC).
Discussions typically last seven days, after which an administrator determines whether a consensus has been reached.and that is obviously not correct, as many (most?) AfDs get closed by non-admins. Earwig is happy. Hooks are both cited but that said, there could be more thrilling hooks in this topic. Outside of DYK requirements, you could go through the citations and unify the style of referring to authors, as there is a mix between "first last" and "last, first" (with the latter preferred going by the correct use of parameters in citation templates). QPQ is outstanding. Schwede 66 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
If that is the case, this is good to go.
Schwede
66
17:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
BD2412 I identify three issues stated in the review: citation needed in specific paragraph, parameter order for author names in cite templates, factual error about who closes deletion discussions. The latter two are now resolved ( diff, diff) so there's only the first thing left, and I suppose that solving it would lead to acceptance. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey, it looks like the prefix "Image" is deprecated, should we change from "Images for discussion" to "Files for discussion", or keep it this way? Sheep8144402 ( talk) 16:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me give two examples. There's an endless controversy about YouTube and how it deals with copyright. Also, there's been a lot of high profile bans on Twitch. Yet, these services don't get these specific articles on these controversial topics. It just seems like a lot of the information could be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. I generally think these articles about Wikipedia itself should be pruned ( First Wikipedia edit, many other articles on ). It's getting to the point where in the future I wouldn't even be surprised if the history of a specific article is itself the subject of an article. Anyway, that's just my two cents. MarkiPoli ( talk) 19:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Per my edit here: I removed "historian" from in front of Robert Tombs in the discussion of the Mass Killings AfD. I think describing him only as a historian without noting that his speciality is 19th Century France is misleading - but then adding that makes it too wordy, simpler to let readers make their own minds up on his qualifiactions by clicking the link to his article. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Footnote 33 links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Shannon. Footnote 45 links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristian Ayre. Footnote 47 links to Wikipedia history of that article. Footnote 53 links to our DelRev discussion. Footnote 56 links to another AfD. That's pure OR.
I think we should either restoe the OR/Primary tags, or removed all content referenced to Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article provides encyclopedic coverage of a notable aspect of Wikipedia and is not intended to act as guidance (from a practical standpoint of an editor). For Wikipedia's policies on deletion see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. To ask questions about current policy go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). |
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | A fact from Deletion of articles on Wikipedia appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I moved the hatnote to Wikipedia:Deletion policy to external links. Wikipedia has adopted a few unfortunate penchants, one is the liberal use of hatnotes for nearly anything. A hatnote to Deletion policy is an editor aid, and putting it the article prime real estate is to value the editor over the reader. While editors may be worth more than readers, this should never be the signal on an article header. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I can immediately see that it is a challenge to write the content based on external sources, as opposed to the expert knowledge editors have on the topic. I didn’t get involved in the Truth vs Verifiability battle, but this is a small example of its application. We know the truth about Wikipedia deletion processes, but what is verifiable from third party sources? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The content seems to deal with enwiki, and not with Wikipedia globally. While other languages generally have speedy deletion and AfD, only a few have DRV for example. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyediting the first paragraph, resectioning, adding notable deletions... all of these are mere suggestions. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Should we have the RevDel section? It seems a bit out of scope for the article title. I suppose that's also true of the brief mentions of other XfD procedures, but those are at least analagous to the AfD process, with RevDel being something categorically different. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Alalch Emis: - I guess the question is what the scope of this article is. For me, the Pierre Sur Haute affair would be like linking an excerpt from Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the article Health effects of tea. Yes, if you drink poisoned tea you might die or get sick, but that's not really the subject of the article - it's about normal tea drinking. Besides, this deletion lasted like one hour. It had absolutely nothing to do with AFD discussions or Wikipedia policies or PRODs (aka what is discussed earlier in the article). Someone reading this article is interested in the community process for deletion of Wikipedia articles, in my opinion, not external actors who somehow delete an article akin to the poison in the tea. Attempting to cover strictly "was the deletion button pressed" is the wrong focus IMO - something like a radioactively controversial AFD with coverage in reliable sources that was ultimately closed as "keep" might well be in scope for this article, while an administrator account getting hijacked and deleting a page briefly is really the topic of Vandalism on Wikipedia, and the Pierre Sur Haute incident is really part of Censorship of Wikipedia. This article should be on the topic of Deletion of articles on Wikipedia by Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia community discussions for a specific scope of coverage. (I am kidding with the title.)
On similar grounds, I'd argue that the "Wikipedia art" excerpt is shaky as well. It's at least more related to the topic but I wouldn't be sorry to see it replaced with something more relevant. On the other hand, the Clarice Phelps incident is exactly on point - a deletion discussion deleted the article, there was coverage of it, the article stayed deleted for more than a year, it led to both debate on the guidelines as well as additional third-party coverage. SnowFire ( talk) 20:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
an edible basidiomycete mushroomincluding information on the deadly poisonous destroying angel (Amanita sp.) To understand what the edible mushroom is, we also talk about what it is not. The community reacted to the outside disruption by restoring the article. The fact that deleted articles are not permanently lost and can be restored is given quite a bit of prominence in the article. The article seems to have been undeleted which is a core aspect of deletion processes as a whole. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, but if this article's scope is going to include out-of-process deletions, I included it in the "main" list of types, as well as an example of what BD2412 described of random vandals blanking pages. Also moved the Pierre Sur Haute example to the new section and chopped it down, don't think we need as many details as the original excerpt had. I will say that the "office actions" bit sourcing isn't great at the moment, just a primary source link, but office actions that aren't Framgate don't tend to get much news media coverage. SnowFire ( talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Created by BD2412 ( talk) and Alalch Emis ( talk). Nominated by BD2412 ( talk) at 02:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC).
Discussions typically last seven days, after which an administrator determines whether a consensus has been reached.and that is obviously not correct, as many (most?) AfDs get closed by non-admins. Earwig is happy. Hooks are both cited but that said, there could be more thrilling hooks in this topic. Outside of DYK requirements, you could go through the citations and unify the style of referring to authors, as there is a mix between "first last" and "last, first" (with the latter preferred going by the correct use of parameters in citation templates). QPQ is outstanding. Schwede 66 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
If that is the case, this is good to go.
Schwede
66
17:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
BD2412 I identify three issues stated in the review: citation needed in specific paragraph, parameter order for author names in cite templates, factual error about who closes deletion discussions. The latter two are now resolved ( diff, diff) so there's only the first thing left, and I suppose that solving it would lead to acceptance. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey, it looks like the prefix "Image" is deprecated, should we change from "Images for discussion" to "Files for discussion", or keep it this way? Sheep8144402 ( talk) 16:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me give two examples. There's an endless controversy about YouTube and how it deals with copyright. Also, there's been a lot of high profile bans on Twitch. Yet, these services don't get these specific articles on these controversial topics. It just seems like a lot of the information could be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. I generally think these articles about Wikipedia itself should be pruned ( First Wikipedia edit, many other articles on ). It's getting to the point where in the future I wouldn't even be surprised if the history of a specific article is itself the subject of an article. Anyway, that's just my two cents. MarkiPoli ( talk) 19:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Per my edit here: I removed "historian" from in front of Robert Tombs in the discussion of the Mass Killings AfD. I think describing him only as a historian without noting that his speciality is 19th Century France is misleading - but then adding that makes it too wordy, simpler to let readers make their own minds up on his qualifiactions by clicking the link to his article. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Footnote 33 links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Shannon. Footnote 45 links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristian Ayre. Footnote 47 links to Wikipedia history of that article. Footnote 53 links to our DelRev discussion. Footnote 56 links to another AfD. That's pure OR.
I think we should either restoe the OR/Primary tags, or removed all content referenced to Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)