Everybody knows that edit wars are prohibited but deletion wars are fully legal and seem to be holier than edit wars. Namely, it is fully legal to continuously nominate an article for deletion every week until enough keepers are absent that the deleters outnumber them. This situation, when some people are just absent, is considered "changing of consensus" and, as a result, the article is deleted. Furthermore, when only a small number of people or even only one person is present, the deletion discussion is considered "full consensus" and a "strong argument for deletion". So the Question is: are Deletion Wars so holy for Wikipedia or not?
P.S. There were some discussions at village pump which show the existence of this problem. ( Idot ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
- Deletion destroys content. Please do not underestimate how important that fact is. Deletion wars are chaotic in nature; an article might be deleted just because the users who support it are not present, and subsequently forgotten. But a missing article deals more damage to users searching for it than an existing article to those accidentally visiting it, so the tendency to deletion is often inappropriate.
- The deletion process requires editors to "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Our deletion policy states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." In other words, editors must check for previous discussions and may be blocked for disruption if they renominate without some new fact or reason for repeating the discussion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 08:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This should be moved out of the article talk namespace as soon as possible. For now, I'll move it into the namespace of the user who created it. -- Soman ( talk) 03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- it is not suitable, 'coz this discusion is not about perosnally me ( Idot ( talk) 03:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)) so I moved it again
- RfCs are supposed to be neutrally worded. In its present form this is a (very) thinly-veiled soapbox and is very unlikely to have a productive conclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Everybody knows that edit wars are prohibited but deletion wars are fully legal and seem to be holier than edit wars. Namely, it is fully legal to continuously nominate an article for deletion every week until enough keepers are absent that the deleters outnumber them. This situation, when some people are just absent, is considered "changing of consensus" and, as a result, the article is deleted. Furthermore, when only a small number of people or even only one person is present, the deletion discussion is considered "full consensus" and a "strong argument for deletion". So the Question is: are Deletion Wars so holy for Wikipedia or not?
P.S. There were some discussions at village pump which show the existence of this problem. ( Idot ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
- Deletion destroys content. Please do not underestimate how important that fact is. Deletion wars are chaotic in nature; an article might be deleted just because the users who support it are not present, and subsequently forgotten. But a missing article deals more damage to users searching for it than an existing article to those accidentally visiting it, so the tendency to deletion is often inappropriate.
- The deletion process requires editors to "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Our deletion policy states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." In other words, editors must check for previous discussions and may be blocked for disruption if they renominate without some new fact or reason for repeating the discussion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 08:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This should be moved out of the article talk namespace as soon as possible. For now, I'll move it into the namespace of the user who created it. -- Soman ( talk) 03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- it is not suitable, 'coz this discusion is not about perosnally me ( Idot ( talk) 03:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)) so I moved it again
- RfCs are supposed to be neutrally worded. In its present form this is a (very) thinly-veiled soapbox and is very unlikely to have a productive conclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)