This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
What is the guideline for due diligence when starting the deletion process? Is the guideline the same for PROD and AFD? AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I added "Content fork" as a reason for deletion. Many articles have been deleted for this reason, but it wasn't in the list, and it's not clear why. Mango juice talk 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi I know IM only new here but since I posted iformation to an article I have been ganged up on by a group who have blocked me for no reason have deleted my userpage and go around undoing any change i make! Can someplease help ? : ( kate 100%freehuman ( talk) 12:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, are content issues such as WP:PLOT or the like ever a reason for deletion? My understanding was that if the topic is notable, we shouldn't delete an article. Hobit ( talk) 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If I would find a biography like the user page of User:Dark Horse King I would mark it with db-notability and also all the images, but for the userpage I can't find a template to do so. What can be done that such users do not get the standart user in wikipedia.-- Stone ( talk) 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In this discussion we said we were going to bring the GFDL issues here. Sorry for the delay as I guess that was my job, seeing as I suggested it. If you actually took it somewhere else and I wasn't paying attention, please just slap me. There were two questions, I believe, plus a related non-GFDL issue:
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Of deep significance to this policy is a current template deletion discussion, of a template that represents a deletion discussion as a vote between two parties:
-- Tony Sidaway 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[moved from Categories_for_discussion/Archive_2008
I notice that the word 'debate' is used when closing discussions, it appears in the instructions as well. Is this the appropriate term for the discussions that have taken place? I believe this term could be misleading, perhaps another would help to build consensus and avoid 'polarisation'. cygnis insignis 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The word 'debate' also appears in the navigational template, and in the page title Wikipedia:Deletion debates. cygnis insignis 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A user has been using article rescue arguments to save what looks to me like a walled garden in his user space. No attempts to improve these articles were made after userfication. I'm concerned that this might be a way people have discovered to circumvent this policy. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages. In particular, I think some standard for the amount of time that a deleted page is allowed to sit idly on a user's subpage needs to be established. Please comment. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this poicy cover just the deletion of entire pages from WP, or is it intended also to cover deletion of a part of the content of a page, while the page continues to exist after that partial content deletion? There are several places on this policy page where the wording leaves it unclear which of those two scopes the policy is intended to cover. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I created some related pages that I want to nominate for deletion, but I want them to go through the "slow" deletion procedure, as I think they may serve an important role within Wikipedia and I want to gain consensus as to whether or not they should be deleted. Would this be possible, even though I'm the only editor?-- Urban Rose 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Is an archive of deleted pages. Someone added an external link to this and someone else removed it. My view is that this link is hepful in understanding this policy and it consequences and so I am reinstating it. It is clearly identified as an external link so there doesn't seem to be any risk of confusion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see the benefit to Wikipedia to link to content that Wikipedia has decided is not compatible with its project. (1 == 2)Until 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletionpedia takes measures to get rid of dangerous pages (i.e. illegal content). There may be a bit of a lag in getting rid of it, but we have a lag here as well sometimes. I think there are legal precedents limiting one's responsibility for hosting content posted by others that was added to one's site through one's automated systems. It's not much different than google caches. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents ( talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia ought to have its own version of Deletionpedia. Once deleted, articles can't be read in order to improve them and overcome the objection that led to their deletion. I wouldn't bother with articles deleted for patent nonsense, hate speech, copyright infringement, or subject matter which, for any reason, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But if a good article is deleted because its authors weren't quite able to prove notability, it deserves to rest in some sort of Purgatory until it can be improved enough to deserve to be resubmitted. Unaware of Deletionpedia, I have already volunteered to host such a project within my own userspace ( User:DOSGuy#Deletapedia). Some sort of task force or official WikiProject tasked with improving good deleted articles is a really good idea. It's not reasonable to expect an article to be sufficiently improved within the few days that it's up for AfD. I'm quite willing to help. DOSGuy ( talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations shows how to mark an article as a copyvio. If you go to the copyvio template page, it states that the template must be subst'ed. The text at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations doesn't reflect this. I figure this is a minor and easy fix, but I thought I'd play it safe and still discuss it on here.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change [1].-- Rockfang ( talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
from: "(...) if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept (...)"
to: "(...) if there is rough consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept (...)"
Rationale: people don't read the rough consensus article, and make wrong assumptions about what sort of consensus is needed for keeping the article, and they use WP:CONSENSUS instead.
Consequences: This misunderstanding somehow makes people reach the wrong conclusion that compliance of wikipedia policies is not important as soon as everyone agrees (head count). That means that they complain about admins when they delete articles because of not compliance of policies even if the head count says "keep", and then go unnecessarily to DRV believing that the admin acted wrong and decision can be overturned on technical grounds (it can't, if you actually read deletion policy carefully). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are some advertising articles in wikipedia. Is it legitimate that every small company or website make there own article and then puts it into disambiguation page for some popular acronym? I think that these pages are intended only for really relevant topics. So if it's not, what's the best way to delete them? 77.126.197.202 ( talk) 23:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As suggested in an above discussion, I would like to add a new section to the policy page dealing with access to deleted pages. I propose the following possible wording:
Comments?-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A proposal has been made at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to reverse the AFD default for biographies of living persons, so that a "no consensus" at AfD outcome would result in deletion of the article. Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just changed the wording of the Deletion discussion section so that it now describes the actual decision method, based on discussion with Skomorokh here User talk:Skomorokh#Jehovah AfD. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is, I suppose, nice to know how happy all of you are with how well the Wikipedia AfD process is working. Nonetheless, I find it troubling that, instead of questions to see if some things might be improvable, there has only been denial of any problem at all. I will leave it at that. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted this in WT:AFD at this section so the specifics are there, but I am proposing that we considering adding that proposed deletion of articles that are claimed to fail content or notability related guidelines (such as NOT and NOTE respectively) should have a mechanism to speedy-keep the article if there is a lack of notification on the article (Via cleanup tags) or the article's talk page (discussion) that the article is failing in these areas, though this speedy-keep should be considered as such a notification such that if no improvements or good faith efforts are made in a reasonable amount of time afterwards (2 weeks to a month), the proposed deletion can be restarted. This is basically due to issues raised at WT:NOT over WP:PLOT that the way NOT and other guidelines are being used now basically only give editors 5 days to fix the article if the deletion proposal is the "first notice". Adding language to the approach that other steps before deletion should be done before deletion, specifically codifying it here or in AFD or elsewhere, may help cool off the struggle between inclusionists and deletionists. I note that we still should deal with patent nonsense and more egregious violations of things like BLP in the current matter -- MASEM 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a guideline WP:Soft redirect, that offers an alternative to AfD for "articles that can never expand beyond dictionary definitions" (or "dictdefs"). However, this policy does not mention such possibility in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Currently it says "transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete from here" (or "move to Wiktionary" in other words). Same for all the sister projects. I think that this policy should be changed to allow a de facto standard practice of turning the more troublesome dictdefs into soft redirects, such as {{ wi}}. I found an old discussion about it has been archived here, without any further action. I would say it was a consensus. (There was a shortpages problem mentioned there, but it has been solved.) -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect there will be some objectons, so I am not bold - this is a policy after all. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)They may be transwikied there before their deletion is decided. Articles that can never be other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") and are not merged as described above, should be deleted after they are copied to Wiktionary.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
What is the guideline for due diligence when starting the deletion process? Is the guideline the same for PROD and AFD? AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I added "Content fork" as a reason for deletion. Many articles have been deleted for this reason, but it wasn't in the list, and it's not clear why. Mango juice talk 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi I know IM only new here but since I posted iformation to an article I have been ganged up on by a group who have blocked me for no reason have deleted my userpage and go around undoing any change i make! Can someplease help ? : ( kate 100%freehuman ( talk) 12:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, are content issues such as WP:PLOT or the like ever a reason for deletion? My understanding was that if the topic is notable, we shouldn't delete an article. Hobit ( talk) 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If I would find a biography like the user page of User:Dark Horse King I would mark it with db-notability and also all the images, but for the userpage I can't find a template to do so. What can be done that such users do not get the standart user in wikipedia.-- Stone ( talk) 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In this discussion we said we were going to bring the GFDL issues here. Sorry for the delay as I guess that was my job, seeing as I suggested it. If you actually took it somewhere else and I wasn't paying attention, please just slap me. There were two questions, I believe, plus a related non-GFDL issue:
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Of deep significance to this policy is a current template deletion discussion, of a template that represents a deletion discussion as a vote between two parties:
-- Tony Sidaway 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[moved from Categories_for_discussion/Archive_2008
I notice that the word 'debate' is used when closing discussions, it appears in the instructions as well. Is this the appropriate term for the discussions that have taken place? I believe this term could be misleading, perhaps another would help to build consensus and avoid 'polarisation'. cygnis insignis 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The word 'debate' also appears in the navigational template, and in the page title Wikipedia:Deletion debates. cygnis insignis 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A user has been using article rescue arguments to save what looks to me like a walled garden in his user space. No attempts to improve these articles were made after userfication. I'm concerned that this might be a way people have discovered to circumvent this policy. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages. In particular, I think some standard for the amount of time that a deleted page is allowed to sit idly on a user's subpage needs to be established. Please comment. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this poicy cover just the deletion of entire pages from WP, or is it intended also to cover deletion of a part of the content of a page, while the page continues to exist after that partial content deletion? There are several places on this policy page where the wording leaves it unclear which of those two scopes the policy is intended to cover. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I created some related pages that I want to nominate for deletion, but I want them to go through the "slow" deletion procedure, as I think they may serve an important role within Wikipedia and I want to gain consensus as to whether or not they should be deleted. Would this be possible, even though I'm the only editor?-- Urban Rose 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Is an archive of deleted pages. Someone added an external link to this and someone else removed it. My view is that this link is hepful in understanding this policy and it consequences and so I am reinstating it. It is clearly identified as an external link so there doesn't seem to be any risk of confusion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see the benefit to Wikipedia to link to content that Wikipedia has decided is not compatible with its project. (1 == 2)Until 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletionpedia takes measures to get rid of dangerous pages (i.e. illegal content). There may be a bit of a lag in getting rid of it, but we have a lag here as well sometimes. I think there are legal precedents limiting one's responsibility for hosting content posted by others that was added to one's site through one's automated systems. It's not much different than google caches. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents ( talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia ought to have its own version of Deletionpedia. Once deleted, articles can't be read in order to improve them and overcome the objection that led to their deletion. I wouldn't bother with articles deleted for patent nonsense, hate speech, copyright infringement, or subject matter which, for any reason, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But if a good article is deleted because its authors weren't quite able to prove notability, it deserves to rest in some sort of Purgatory until it can be improved enough to deserve to be resubmitted. Unaware of Deletionpedia, I have already volunteered to host such a project within my own userspace ( User:DOSGuy#Deletapedia). Some sort of task force or official WikiProject tasked with improving good deleted articles is a really good idea. It's not reasonable to expect an article to be sufficiently improved within the few days that it's up for AfD. I'm quite willing to help. DOSGuy ( talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations shows how to mark an article as a copyvio. If you go to the copyvio template page, it states that the template must be subst'ed. The text at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violations doesn't reflect this. I figure this is a minor and easy fix, but I thought I'd play it safe and still discuss it on here.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change [1].-- Rockfang ( talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
from: "(...) if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept (...)"
to: "(...) if there is rough consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept (...)"
Rationale: people don't read the rough consensus article, and make wrong assumptions about what sort of consensus is needed for keeping the article, and they use WP:CONSENSUS instead.
Consequences: This misunderstanding somehow makes people reach the wrong conclusion that compliance of wikipedia policies is not important as soon as everyone agrees (head count). That means that they complain about admins when they delete articles because of not compliance of policies even if the head count says "keep", and then go unnecessarily to DRV believing that the admin acted wrong and decision can be overturned on technical grounds (it can't, if you actually read deletion policy carefully). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are some advertising articles in wikipedia. Is it legitimate that every small company or website make there own article and then puts it into disambiguation page for some popular acronym? I think that these pages are intended only for really relevant topics. So if it's not, what's the best way to delete them? 77.126.197.202 ( talk) 23:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As suggested in an above discussion, I would like to add a new section to the policy page dealing with access to deleted pages. I propose the following possible wording:
Comments?-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A proposal has been made at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to reverse the AFD default for biographies of living persons, so that a "no consensus" at AfD outcome would result in deletion of the article. Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just changed the wording of the Deletion discussion section so that it now describes the actual decision method, based on discussion with Skomorokh here User talk:Skomorokh#Jehovah AfD. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is, I suppose, nice to know how happy all of you are with how well the Wikipedia AfD process is working. Nonetheless, I find it troubling that, instead of questions to see if some things might be improvable, there has only been denial of any problem at all. I will leave it at that. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted this in WT:AFD at this section so the specifics are there, but I am proposing that we considering adding that proposed deletion of articles that are claimed to fail content or notability related guidelines (such as NOT and NOTE respectively) should have a mechanism to speedy-keep the article if there is a lack of notification on the article (Via cleanup tags) or the article's talk page (discussion) that the article is failing in these areas, though this speedy-keep should be considered as such a notification such that if no improvements or good faith efforts are made in a reasonable amount of time afterwards (2 weeks to a month), the proposed deletion can be restarted. This is basically due to issues raised at WT:NOT over WP:PLOT that the way NOT and other guidelines are being used now basically only give editors 5 days to fix the article if the deletion proposal is the "first notice". Adding language to the approach that other steps before deletion should be done before deletion, specifically codifying it here or in AFD or elsewhere, may help cool off the struggle between inclusionists and deletionists. I note that we still should deal with patent nonsense and more egregious violations of things like BLP in the current matter -- MASEM 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a guideline WP:Soft redirect, that offers an alternative to AfD for "articles that can never expand beyond dictionary definitions" (or "dictdefs"). However, this policy does not mention such possibility in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Currently it says "transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete from here" (or "move to Wiktionary" in other words). Same for all the sister projects. I think that this policy should be changed to allow a de facto standard practice of turning the more troublesome dictdefs into soft redirects, such as {{ wi}}. I found an old discussion about it has been archived here, without any further action. I would say it was a consensus. (There was a shortpages problem mentioned there, but it has been solved.) -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect there will be some objectons, so I am not bold - this is a policy after all. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)They may be transwikied there before their deletion is decided. Articles that can never be other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") and are not merged as described above, should be deleted after they are copied to Wiktionary.