This
WikiProject is defunct. Consider looking for related projects such as WikiProject Deletion sorting for help or ask at the Teahouse. If you feel this project may be worth reviving,
please discuss with related projects first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error. (Tag placed 22 October 2017)
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cut here | |||||
|
|||||
We are dedicated to the opposition of articles that do not belong in Wikipedia, and we are equally dedicated to not deleting the articles that do. When Wikipedia's deletion process runs smoothly, fairly, and with the policies of the Wikimedia Foundation as its only rationale, regardless of whether an editor votes keep or delete, then our job is done. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. | |||||
By definition, the scope of the project is very literally all articles in Wikipedia with an assessment code of Start or Stub. Articles rated B or higher, or of importance beyond low, should not be addressed by this project.
We aren't concerned with governance councils, charters, or elections. There is no leader. Any Wikipedian in good standing is welcome. We have no positions. We don't have notice boards, and we don't have barnstars. (FFS, giving out barnstars for deleting articles would get us tarred and feathered.)
We DO have an IRC room at #deletion. Feel free to come in.
We only have three rules here.
The primary focus of the project in dealing with articles should be analysis. Is this article worthy of deletion? If so, which policies state this? The primary problem with XfD is too many people vote only on if they think an article is appropriate for deletion, or if an article is not worthy of deletion, based on feelings, and on the topic, rather than on policy. An excellent example of this is Cleveland Steamer (topic is completely not safe for work).
The use of WP:HEY is a good example of how an article for deletion can be turned into a valuable article, but does not itself suggest that people will work that hard to get it to a Heymann Standard. Thus, the use of WP:HEY or "the article can be improved" should only be considered when the article has a wide likely audience of potentially interested editors. Ironically, types of fancruft, which most Deletionists dislike, are very likely to be improved by fans.
This is different than determination. We must analyze articles based on policy. The ones that currently fail policy have to be determined to be either likely to be improved or likely to be ignored. If they are likely to be ignored, then we discriminate articles that should be deleted from those that should not based on their current condition. An article that fails one or more policy guidelines and is not likely to be improved but is well-written and with an attempt at sourcing and NPOV should thus be improved by us. Articles that fail this last standard should be deleted with maximum prejudice.
Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse. Yet increasingly, we are seeing articles that are very POV in their basic orientation. From Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) to 9/11 conspiracy theories , we have a number of articles that exist merely to present a certain group of POV's. This is not to say that the articles are always written in a POV fashion -- many are quite NPOV -- but that they attract writers with a particular POV.
This relates to AfD in that many of these articles started out as good articles, but as POV pushers fill them with dubious sourcing and wild allegations, they begin looking quite shaky, and might even be deleted, rather than restored. This is unacceptable. The need is to edit them properly so this does not happen.
Wikipedia is not a news service or news report archive. Yet more and more attention is paid to creating articles for stories which have only received news coverage, without considering the difference between news and encyclopedia content as well as the longer term historical perspective. This significantly reduces the attention given to creating and improving substantively encyclopedic content. It also undermines Wikipedia's sister project, Wikinews (which is intended to be a news service), by distracting potential user traffic and editorial oversight from that project.
Wikipedia is not a gallows. Some people like building stubs, then slowly expanding the article as they go along , sourcing and refining. Yet increasingly, speedy deletion is killing off stubs, in some cases in under 50 minutes from time of creation. Please let stubs exist, they are not to be deleted insanely fast after their creation.
Wikipedia is not a trashcan. But the backlog at cleanup continues to build, and some of these articles we have cannot be cleaned up, but aren't being deleted or stubbed.
Wikipedia is not a hunting preserve. But if you create (or delete) articles perceived as being anti-American, anti-Zionist, anti-feminist, anti-atheist, or anti-Christian, etc., some people will vilify you and scrutinize your edits until someone finds a flaw, your edits reverted, and eventually someone will drag you to a loaded RfC, then pull the trigger on ArbCom. The problem is not necessarily the fact that the articles are bad, but that the articles aren't cleaned up and fixed, just deleted. Deletion is not for resolving edit wars.
These are required at all times per Wikipedia's policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but to abide by them at XfD is especially required. Passions often get inflamed at these places and incivility will not help you "win" the argument. Courtesy is important at all times.
More generally - and obviously - creators of articles should almost always be informed when their articles are nominated for deletion. While on Newpage patrol and tagging articles for speedy deletion this is equally true for good-faith contributions, and a variety of templates for this to be left on user talk can be found at WP:SPEEDY. For bad-faith contributions, on the other hand - completely patent nonsense and pure vandalism - just tag and move on.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion:
|
Updated manually: We currently are reviewing no articles at the present:
All articles for review |
(none)
Neglected AfD Listing - Complete listing
Many AfD's receive only a few votes, for whatever reasons. Some of the AfD results end up as improper deletions or improper keeps. Make an attempt to review such neglected AfD's as you have time.
Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Despite the name of the project, anyone is free to join, including Inclusionists. Balance in viewpoints can only lead to a fuller, more accurate and more objective consensus.
We have a userbox if you wish to display such:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Deletion. |
-> {{User:Elaragirl/Wpdel}}
Category | Entries | Diff | Mean | Std Dev | Range | Per Day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles for deletion | 1030 | +29 | 1007.1 | 187.5 | 607-1364 | -3.0 |
Templates for deletion | 91 | +6 | 142.1 | 71.8 | 37-352 | -0.8 |
Categories for deletion | 237 | +48 | 270.8 | 134.0 | 9-611 | +0.4 |
Images and media for deletion | 742 | +3 | 841.5 | 212.5 | 503-1435 | -0.6 |
Redirects for deletion | 66 | -5 | 67.4 | 28.2 | 26-231 | +0.0 |
Miscellaneous pages for deletion | 27 | +4 | 35.6 | 39.1 | 6-406 | +0.2 |
Possible copyright violations | 432 | -79 | 530.6 | 346.2 | 182-1324 | -6.6 |
All articles proposed for deletion | 1067 | -73 | 872.8 | 191.3 | 523-1268 | +1.4 |
{{ WikiProject Deletion}} should not need many template types. Specifically, do not create new stub types, and we should avoid meta-templates.
Name | Code | Produces | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cleanup Template | {{User:Elaragirl/wpdelrev|reason}} |
| ||
Fix Article Template | {{User:Elaragirl/wpdelfixplease|reason}} |
|
Some ... interesting ... XfD's
This
WikiProject is defunct. Consider looking for related projects such as WikiProject Deletion sorting for help or ask at the Teahouse. If you feel this project may be worth reviving,
please discuss with related projects first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error. (Tag placed 22 October 2017)
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cut here | |||||
|
|||||
We are dedicated to the opposition of articles that do not belong in Wikipedia, and we are equally dedicated to not deleting the articles that do. When Wikipedia's deletion process runs smoothly, fairly, and with the policies of the Wikimedia Foundation as its only rationale, regardless of whether an editor votes keep or delete, then our job is done. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. | |||||
By definition, the scope of the project is very literally all articles in Wikipedia with an assessment code of Start or Stub. Articles rated B or higher, or of importance beyond low, should not be addressed by this project.
We aren't concerned with governance councils, charters, or elections. There is no leader. Any Wikipedian in good standing is welcome. We have no positions. We don't have notice boards, and we don't have barnstars. (FFS, giving out barnstars for deleting articles would get us tarred and feathered.)
We DO have an IRC room at #deletion. Feel free to come in.
We only have three rules here.
The primary focus of the project in dealing with articles should be analysis. Is this article worthy of deletion? If so, which policies state this? The primary problem with XfD is too many people vote only on if they think an article is appropriate for deletion, or if an article is not worthy of deletion, based on feelings, and on the topic, rather than on policy. An excellent example of this is Cleveland Steamer (topic is completely not safe for work).
The use of WP:HEY is a good example of how an article for deletion can be turned into a valuable article, but does not itself suggest that people will work that hard to get it to a Heymann Standard. Thus, the use of WP:HEY or "the article can be improved" should only be considered when the article has a wide likely audience of potentially interested editors. Ironically, types of fancruft, which most Deletionists dislike, are very likely to be improved by fans.
This is different than determination. We must analyze articles based on policy. The ones that currently fail policy have to be determined to be either likely to be improved or likely to be ignored. If they are likely to be ignored, then we discriminate articles that should be deleted from those that should not based on their current condition. An article that fails one or more policy guidelines and is not likely to be improved but is well-written and with an attempt at sourcing and NPOV should thus be improved by us. Articles that fail this last standard should be deleted with maximum prejudice.
Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse. Yet increasingly, we are seeing articles that are very POV in their basic orientation. From Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) to 9/11 conspiracy theories , we have a number of articles that exist merely to present a certain group of POV's. This is not to say that the articles are always written in a POV fashion -- many are quite NPOV -- but that they attract writers with a particular POV.
This relates to AfD in that many of these articles started out as good articles, but as POV pushers fill them with dubious sourcing and wild allegations, they begin looking quite shaky, and might even be deleted, rather than restored. This is unacceptable. The need is to edit them properly so this does not happen.
Wikipedia is not a news service or news report archive. Yet more and more attention is paid to creating articles for stories which have only received news coverage, without considering the difference between news and encyclopedia content as well as the longer term historical perspective. This significantly reduces the attention given to creating and improving substantively encyclopedic content. It also undermines Wikipedia's sister project, Wikinews (which is intended to be a news service), by distracting potential user traffic and editorial oversight from that project.
Wikipedia is not a gallows. Some people like building stubs, then slowly expanding the article as they go along , sourcing and refining. Yet increasingly, speedy deletion is killing off stubs, in some cases in under 50 minutes from time of creation. Please let stubs exist, they are not to be deleted insanely fast after their creation.
Wikipedia is not a trashcan. But the backlog at cleanup continues to build, and some of these articles we have cannot be cleaned up, but aren't being deleted or stubbed.
Wikipedia is not a hunting preserve. But if you create (or delete) articles perceived as being anti-American, anti-Zionist, anti-feminist, anti-atheist, or anti-Christian, etc., some people will vilify you and scrutinize your edits until someone finds a flaw, your edits reverted, and eventually someone will drag you to a loaded RfC, then pull the trigger on ArbCom. The problem is not necessarily the fact that the articles are bad, but that the articles aren't cleaned up and fixed, just deleted. Deletion is not for resolving edit wars.
These are required at all times per Wikipedia's policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but to abide by them at XfD is especially required. Passions often get inflamed at these places and incivility will not help you "win" the argument. Courtesy is important at all times.
More generally - and obviously - creators of articles should almost always be informed when their articles are nominated for deletion. While on Newpage patrol and tagging articles for speedy deletion this is equally true for good-faith contributions, and a variety of templates for this to be left on user talk can be found at WP:SPEEDY. For bad-faith contributions, on the other hand - completely patent nonsense and pure vandalism - just tag and move on.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion:
|
Updated manually: We currently are reviewing no articles at the present:
All articles for review |
(none)
Neglected AfD Listing - Complete listing
Many AfD's receive only a few votes, for whatever reasons. Some of the AfD results end up as improper deletions or improper keeps. Make an attempt to review such neglected AfD's as you have time.
Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Despite the name of the project, anyone is free to join, including Inclusionists. Balance in viewpoints can only lead to a fuller, more accurate and more objective consensus.
We have a userbox if you wish to display such:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Deletion. |
-> {{User:Elaragirl/Wpdel}}
Category | Entries | Diff | Mean | Std Dev | Range | Per Day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles for deletion | 1030 | +29 | 1007.1 | 187.5 | 607-1364 | -3.0 |
Templates for deletion | 91 | +6 | 142.1 | 71.8 | 37-352 | -0.8 |
Categories for deletion | 237 | +48 | 270.8 | 134.0 | 9-611 | +0.4 |
Images and media for deletion | 742 | +3 | 841.5 | 212.5 | 503-1435 | -0.6 |
Redirects for deletion | 66 | -5 | 67.4 | 28.2 | 26-231 | +0.0 |
Miscellaneous pages for deletion | 27 | +4 | 35.6 | 39.1 | 6-406 | +0.2 |
Possible copyright violations | 432 | -79 | 530.6 | 346.2 | 182-1324 | -6.6 |
All articles proposed for deletion | 1067 | -73 | 872.8 | 191.3 | 523-1268 | +1.4 |
{{ WikiProject Deletion}} should not need many template types. Specifically, do not create new stub types, and we should avoid meta-templates.
Name | Code | Produces | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cleanup Template | {{User:Elaragirl/wpdelrev|reason}} |
| ||
Fix Article Template | {{User:Elaragirl/wpdelfixplease|reason}} |
|
Some ... interesting ... XfD's