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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
NetOracle has been nominating a large amount of webcomics for deletion if they only vaguely fit the deletion criteria. 68.42.37.75 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that moderators are abusing their power to delete pages. For instance, there is a moderator that is racist against anything non=Japanese, who deletes anime pages simply because he doesn't think they are "Japanese" enough. In actuality, there are several like this, but the one I'm talking about is Farix. He voted to delete the article for an anime fansite just because he didn't think it was Japanese enough. I think that mods should have to give legitimate reasons for deleting something, not just personal feelings. Just like in articles, there should be a requirement to cite sources. I've been going to Wikipedia for a while now, and I'm starting to lose my faith in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlindJustice ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Hello. My name is Alex Hammer. I am having trouble signing in, otherwise I would look whether there is a space on my personal page (or some other section) on which to discuss the following (I also did a search on Contact Us, and the deletion page looked more relevant for the following). I created an article entitled Politics 2.0, which documented long references/artcles on the term from the New York Times, GigaOm and The Politico, all major sources. Here's another one: Technorati indicating the term Politics 2.0 searched approaching (and sometimes over) 100 or more times per day http://www.technorati.com/search/Politics+2.0 . I also detailed how Internet and Web 2.0 strategies, technologies and tools are about the hottest area in Politics, influencing all the presidential campaigns in a major major way, and furthermore how such content is only covered in a completely marginal, sliver of a way across other Wikipedia articles. Like Web 2.0, and Business 2.0, which Wikipedia has articles for, Politics 2.0 is now well recognized.
The article was deleted and I don't know whether a trace or history of the fuller discussion still exists (couldn't find it). If anyone can get this to the right editor, I'd like to discuss this if this is possible. Do I need to now open also a new Wikipedia account? My email is hscpub@aol.com (I am a professional person, former candidate for Governor of Maine and owner of five division media company, now run a new blog that is jumping up Alexa!) Thank you very much.
Recently, an article I started about an American blogger was nominated for deletion. Such things can happen, but this was the third time it had happened in a year. The first AfD resulted in a keep. The blogger, referenced by the Wall Street Journal's and the Nation Review's online sites, had just begun to substitute for Michelle Malkin, and thus notability was difficult to deny. The second AfD was rescinded when the nominator was informed of the first AfD. After this, I moved the article, due to the anonymous blogger becoming more popular than his now-defunct blog. His iconoclastic pseudonym, combined with his position as the primary contributor to Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, means that he is a lightening rod for criticism, hate, and, on Wikipedia, AfDs. Thus, the day most Americans' Christmas vacation began, the article received its third AfD, even though the article had changed little from its inception, only having more sources and an update as to the blogger's current prominent position. The AfD proceeded with far less attention than it would have gotten had it not been the holiday, and the timing seemed suspicious given the rightward slant of those who might defend the article (people who, I believe, would be less likely to be online during the holidays). Anyway, the lack of interest resulted in a "no consensus" result. I didn't have time to heap yet more sources onto the article — such as the Mary Mapes book — or to give it a proper defense until after I got home from vacation. In any event, while my having to add the source was a good thing, my having to repeatedly monitor this article and come to its defense has not been (and will not be). It has been, frankly, a waste of time. So I'd suggest the following:
I realize some may see these as fairly audacious suggestions considering that it's just one modest page that I've been concerned with, and, honestly, I don't expect any of them to be adopted in whole. But I do hope that there's some discussion about this that considers the flaws in the current policy, discussion that can result in something positive. Calbaer 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to create a new category, with a long lag time for old, slow moving, many-authored, good-faith articles. I feel that five days is a very short period in which such a page may be deleted. Several days lag time means there is a serious bias towards wikiholics. I dare suggest that this biases against older, mature, professional, expert, patient editors. I don’t think it is a good thing to ignore editors for whom wikipedia is not central to their lives, and who may very well go several weeks without checking their watchlists.
I suggest a lag time of 6 months. This will apply to articles that are at least two years old AND have at least ten authors AND the content is substantially in good faith to wikipedia’s principles.
I feel that for such a page, any request for deletion should clearly specify good reasons for deletion, that that there should be a presumption that the page will be improved to fix the specified problems. -- SmokeyJoe 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I just did some quick analysis of December deletion statistics. I focused on deletion review, because that was what I was most interested in. Counting AFDs could be interesting also, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Deletion log entries are for all spaces (article, talk, User, Image, etc...)
Deletion Activity
Deletion Review
GRBerry 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What are the guidelines on deleting old user talk pages? There doesn't seem to be any info here. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The page recommends "Add {{ civil1}} or {{ civil2}}" for "Annoying or incivil user" under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. In the deletion discussion for civil 1 folks mentioned that templating users at these times is counterproductive. I'm going to go ahead take out that text for now (obviously it's not helpful to refer to deleted templates), but I'd suggest putting in wording like "Respectfully and gently ask the user to follow the civility policy" or some such. Any thoughts? delldot | talk 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Am curious as to how this is meant to apply to the AfD, does it keep on running or does it close early with a Keep? Any links points to appropriate pages would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Mathmo Talk 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is unclear in a most fundamental way; it does say that an admin is needed to delete a page, but it does Not mention if non-admins can nominate articles for deletion. I would edit the page to answer this, but I don't know the answer. Help? Wolphii 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If a user can only use Wikipedia once a week, say a random weekend day, they will miss a Monday AfD listing. 8 days would be fairer. Notatest 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the change to 8 days. The rational is simple, this would allow people who only edit once a week to participate. It would also eliminate any incentive to try to game the system by listing articles for AfD on days of the week that are likely to get less attention. Also, many AfD's are held over for a total of 10 days anyway, because of a lack of consensus, so this would eliminate the need for the holdover, and allow a no-consensus to stand after a single 8-day period. Dhaluza 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I recently made an edit to application of the notability criteria, and it was reverted citing the main misconception that was the reason for the change. Many editors are under the mistaken impression that AfD is a judgment on the current state of an article, and failure of an author to meet notability criteria in the current text is grounds for deletion. This is a perversion of the whole process. We are supposed to support each other, and an editor who creates an article that falls short should be helped by other editors if possible. So if the subject is notable, the article should be improved to establish notability, not deleted by other editors sitting in judgment. Dhaluza 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'd say that notability relates to the audience or, given some of the frankly bizarre stuff I've seen written here, to the perceptions that third parties ("secondary sources") want to create. It's clear that articles with a "too-specialized" audience can be labeled as non-notable ... by people outside of that audience, who may accordingly be wholly unqualified to judge notability! Ditto things in for example early stages of technical development, where secondary sources may not yet exist. In short, Notability seems to be extremely subjective (despite assertions otherwise) and contrary to Encyclopaedic goals. -- 69.226.208.120 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there is an important point here that needs to be stated explicitly, because it does not come through loud and clear now:
Is there any problem with adding this? Dhaluza 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
...is a draft for rewriting this policy to make it less long and complex, and incorporate the undeletion policy as well. It should not be a substantial change, just a clearer version. Please comment on its talk page, and/or copyedit. >Radiant< 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have long been complaining that webcomics articles are deleted unfairly. In defence of this view I offer the following:
“ | February 15, 2007
Webcartoonist punks Wikipedia Kristofer Straub reports on the deletion of his webcomic Starslip Crisis:
Yes, it does look to me like the process is broken, why do you ask? |
” |
Posted on Reinder Dijkhuis's blog at http://rocr.xepher.net/weblog/archives/001935.html
Lee M 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
Why can't articles be purged completely and irrevocably from Wikipedia servers? What about copyvios? Or libel? Those should be purged completely and irrevocably. 74.38.32.195 08:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview#Overspecialization:
Basically, what I am proposing is a new comment/close for AfD's, something like "Delete on Hold" (I'm not attached to the name). This would be used for borderline deletion cases (similar to "weak delete/keep") and would give extra time to repair the article (cite, cleanup, etc) before it is deleted. This would have a corresponding template to be put on the article, similar to those put on untagged images. The article would be put into a category ("Deletions on hold" or something like that) and the article would have a set number of days (7, 10, 14, whatever sounds reasonable) before it is deleted if it is not repaired. If the article is repaired, there would have to be some process for determining this. Letting any editor remove the tag won't work, maybe another AfD?
The process would go something like this:
I think this could save some borderline deletion cases and could help get more articles to meet quality standards. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am posting a proposal derived in part from the notability discussion and in part from my recent experience at AfD patrolling. Let me say this: AfD patrol takes a long time (in fact, so long that I've had little or no opportunity for several weeks to contribute to articles with which I am or would like to be actively involved). So, please find below my proposed addition to WP deletion policy: I'm going to be somewhat long-winded, but the addition can be much shorter. Oh, and please note, this proposal is not intended to replace the idea expressed above by User:Mr.Z-man, nor is it intended as a parallel to it--it's a separate proposal.
Given that:
I propose that:
Any editor who wishes to nominate an article for deletion at WP:AFD be required to give advance notice of this intention to the article's creator and the primary contributor(s), if they are not the same.
In this advance notice, the editor can express the particular concerns s/he has about the article and request that the major problems be fixed, so that the article becomes viable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If, after the expiration of a designated period of time, the article is not improved to the editor's satisfaction, s/he may propose it for deletion via WP:AFD. If all notified authors refuse (in writing) to change the article prior to the expiration of that time, the editor may list the article at WP:AFD without further delay. A refusal or failure to act by the notified authors should not reflect negatively on the merits of the article at AfD. In order to serve its purpose, the "advance notice" should last no less than 48 hours, to give the authors time to address the issues raised.
Allow me to enumerate the advantages of this proposal:
Advantages
Qualifications
Proposed implementation A number of methods, used separately or in conjunction may be used to implement this proposal upon its acceptance (assuming, of course, that it is accepted):
I would be happy to hear comments and criticisms of this proposal, as well as any suggestions for changing it. -- Black Falcon 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Improve the article to meet WP standards or your contributions may be deleted (not sometime in the distant future as per WP guidelines, but within the span of a few days)! The truth is, I don't particularly care who improves the article, but since you seem to have the most interest in this topic (based on the article's edit history) and thus the most desire to see it kept, I'm turning to you.
In general the idea is good. However IMO it is nnecessry. We already have tags {{ unreferenced}}, {{ not verified}}, {{ prod}}, etc. If the contributors don't bother to review their contributions from time to time and address the concern, the article is a fair game to AFD. The existing way may be improved as follows:
I agree that in many cases AfD is a desperate attempt to force the authors to fix it. But wikipedia in over 1.5 mln articles now. Do we really have to strive to keep every scrap of it as it was in early days with the main purpose being growth? If a topic is notable, someone will recreate it, possibly in better way. Mukadderat 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.
Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on complaints that the deletion policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted, several people have revised the deletion policy page, to clarify it, remove redundancy, and incorporate material from a few related policies, in particular WP:PROD, WP:UNDEL and WP:CBLANK. This is not a change in policy, just a reworking of the relevant pages. The draft can be found at the link above; unless there are big objections, the intent is to move this over the present deletion policy as a new version; the second step would be to verify that it contains all relevant material from the related policies mentioned above, and complete the merge with a redirect. Please comment on the draft's talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the rationale behind Deletion For Privacy? Did this materialize because of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy?. 100110100 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgies t c 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Over a month ago a rewrite of this page was started at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Draft, with the aim to clean up the page, remove redundancies, and clarify. This is not a change in actual policy, just in the wording. This has been discussed on the draft's talk page, as well as WP:LAP, WP:AN and the village pump, and is part of a general aim to keep our policies up to date and simple. If you see any problems, unclarities, or inadvertent changes, please edit the page and fix them. >Radiant< 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, I am in the midst of making some changes to the page. I'm essentially copy-pasting some sentences and ideas from the previous version that were absent in this version (e.g., about blocked users), although I'm doing my best not to lengthen the page much. I think the re-inclusion of these parts would make WP:DEL more accessible to new users as the new version seems (at least to me) to be oriented more toward experienced users (i.e., it does not mention policies that seem commonsense to those generally familiar with Wikipedia--e.g., blocked users can't participate in XfD). Please let me know if you disagree with the changes I have made and will make, so that we can stop and discuss them. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the statement that the speedy criteria boil down to an obvious absence of encyclopedic content. The speedy criteria, as partially remarked on WP:SPEEDY, have been drawn narrowly as a result of various historical compromises regarding which material is safe to delete on sight and which material should be discussed before deletion. They're not intended to be criteria of what is encyclopedic and what isn't. For example, (i) a page giving 1,000,000,000 digits of π, (ii) an essay explaining why chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla and everyone should prefer it to vanilla, and (iii) a list of all persons in Adelaide would all be obviously unencyclopedic, but none of these things are speediable. Spacepotato 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The previous policy lists two cases when article deletion may be necessary because of WP:A failure:
To match the former policy, it seems to be clearer and more correct to reproduce these two cases. Spacepotato 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added two emphasis notes (that >1000 pages deleted per day, and that merging doesn't require discussion). These are common novice mistakes. The paragraph about who can participate in AFD discussions belongs in the AFD section, not the header. Note that contesting a speedy doesn't mean it can't get deleted anyway, and note that you don't need to know the CSDs by heart in order to PROD. It's certainly valid to PROD (or AFD) an article that would technically be a speedy. >Radiant< 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been a good deal of complaint recently at AfD about the arapid renomination of pages on AfD, until a successful vote can be (perhaps by change) obtained. I feel, and others there also feel, that this is an abuse of process. Perhaps now is the time to say specify something about this, and the wording I suggest is that material keep as a result of a AfD cannot be re-proposed for deletion by any process except deletion review for three months. (time adjustable--personally, i would choose 6 months, but this may be too much of a step. I'd also accept "at least one month" . I'm not sure to say about items closed as "no consensus". DGG 09:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have created article Internet troll squads, and it was marked for deletion. Could you take a look and tell your opinion? I think, this case might be interesting for defining deletion policies in general. Biophys 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
somewhere along the lines of "what arguments not to use in a deletion discussion". Anyone know what I'm talking about? Blueaster 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[3] Here you go. Risker 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
NetOracle has been nominating a large amount of webcomics for deletion if they only vaguely fit the deletion criteria. 68.42.37.75 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that moderators are abusing their power to delete pages. For instance, there is a moderator that is racist against anything non=Japanese, who deletes anime pages simply because he doesn't think they are "Japanese" enough. In actuality, there are several like this, but the one I'm talking about is Farix. He voted to delete the article for an anime fansite just because he didn't think it was Japanese enough. I think that mods should have to give legitimate reasons for deleting something, not just personal feelings. Just like in articles, there should be a requirement to cite sources. I've been going to Wikipedia for a while now, and I'm starting to lose my faith in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlindJustice ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Hello. My name is Alex Hammer. I am having trouble signing in, otherwise I would look whether there is a space on my personal page (or some other section) on which to discuss the following (I also did a search on Contact Us, and the deletion page looked more relevant for the following). I created an article entitled Politics 2.0, which documented long references/artcles on the term from the New York Times, GigaOm and The Politico, all major sources. Here's another one: Technorati indicating the term Politics 2.0 searched approaching (and sometimes over) 100 or more times per day http://www.technorati.com/search/Politics+2.0 . I also detailed how Internet and Web 2.0 strategies, technologies and tools are about the hottest area in Politics, influencing all the presidential campaigns in a major major way, and furthermore how such content is only covered in a completely marginal, sliver of a way across other Wikipedia articles. Like Web 2.0, and Business 2.0, which Wikipedia has articles for, Politics 2.0 is now well recognized.
The article was deleted and I don't know whether a trace or history of the fuller discussion still exists (couldn't find it). If anyone can get this to the right editor, I'd like to discuss this if this is possible. Do I need to now open also a new Wikipedia account? My email is hscpub@aol.com (I am a professional person, former candidate for Governor of Maine and owner of five division media company, now run a new blog that is jumping up Alexa!) Thank you very much.
Recently, an article I started about an American blogger was nominated for deletion. Such things can happen, but this was the third time it had happened in a year. The first AfD resulted in a keep. The blogger, referenced by the Wall Street Journal's and the Nation Review's online sites, had just begun to substitute for Michelle Malkin, and thus notability was difficult to deny. The second AfD was rescinded when the nominator was informed of the first AfD. After this, I moved the article, due to the anonymous blogger becoming more popular than his now-defunct blog. His iconoclastic pseudonym, combined with his position as the primary contributor to Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, means that he is a lightening rod for criticism, hate, and, on Wikipedia, AfDs. Thus, the day most Americans' Christmas vacation began, the article received its third AfD, even though the article had changed little from its inception, only having more sources and an update as to the blogger's current prominent position. The AfD proceeded with far less attention than it would have gotten had it not been the holiday, and the timing seemed suspicious given the rightward slant of those who might defend the article (people who, I believe, would be less likely to be online during the holidays). Anyway, the lack of interest resulted in a "no consensus" result. I didn't have time to heap yet more sources onto the article — such as the Mary Mapes book — or to give it a proper defense until after I got home from vacation. In any event, while my having to add the source was a good thing, my having to repeatedly monitor this article and come to its defense has not been (and will not be). It has been, frankly, a waste of time. So I'd suggest the following:
I realize some may see these as fairly audacious suggestions considering that it's just one modest page that I've been concerned with, and, honestly, I don't expect any of them to be adopted in whole. But I do hope that there's some discussion about this that considers the flaws in the current policy, discussion that can result in something positive. Calbaer 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to create a new category, with a long lag time for old, slow moving, many-authored, good-faith articles. I feel that five days is a very short period in which such a page may be deleted. Several days lag time means there is a serious bias towards wikiholics. I dare suggest that this biases against older, mature, professional, expert, patient editors. I don’t think it is a good thing to ignore editors for whom wikipedia is not central to their lives, and who may very well go several weeks without checking their watchlists.
I suggest a lag time of 6 months. This will apply to articles that are at least two years old AND have at least ten authors AND the content is substantially in good faith to wikipedia’s principles.
I feel that for such a page, any request for deletion should clearly specify good reasons for deletion, that that there should be a presumption that the page will be improved to fix the specified problems. -- SmokeyJoe 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I just did some quick analysis of December deletion statistics. I focused on deletion review, because that was what I was most interested in. Counting AFDs could be interesting also, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. Deletion log entries are for all spaces (article, talk, User, Image, etc...)
Deletion Activity
Deletion Review
GRBerry 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What are the guidelines on deleting old user talk pages? There doesn't seem to be any info here. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The page recommends "Add {{ civil1}} or {{ civil2}}" for "Annoying or incivil user" under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. In the deletion discussion for civil 1 folks mentioned that templating users at these times is counterproductive. I'm going to go ahead take out that text for now (obviously it's not helpful to refer to deleted templates), but I'd suggest putting in wording like "Respectfully and gently ask the user to follow the civility policy" or some such. Any thoughts? delldot | talk 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Am curious as to how this is meant to apply to the AfD, does it keep on running or does it close early with a Keep? Any links points to appropriate pages would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Mathmo Talk 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is unclear in a most fundamental way; it does say that an admin is needed to delete a page, but it does Not mention if non-admins can nominate articles for deletion. I would edit the page to answer this, but I don't know the answer. Help? Wolphii 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If a user can only use Wikipedia once a week, say a random weekend day, they will miss a Monday AfD listing. 8 days would be fairer. Notatest 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the change to 8 days. The rational is simple, this would allow people who only edit once a week to participate. It would also eliminate any incentive to try to game the system by listing articles for AfD on days of the week that are likely to get less attention. Also, many AfD's are held over for a total of 10 days anyway, because of a lack of consensus, so this would eliminate the need for the holdover, and allow a no-consensus to stand after a single 8-day period. Dhaluza 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I recently made an edit to application of the notability criteria, and it was reverted citing the main misconception that was the reason for the change. Many editors are under the mistaken impression that AfD is a judgment on the current state of an article, and failure of an author to meet notability criteria in the current text is grounds for deletion. This is a perversion of the whole process. We are supposed to support each other, and an editor who creates an article that falls short should be helped by other editors if possible. So if the subject is notable, the article should be improved to establish notability, not deleted by other editors sitting in judgment. Dhaluza 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'd say that notability relates to the audience or, given some of the frankly bizarre stuff I've seen written here, to the perceptions that third parties ("secondary sources") want to create. It's clear that articles with a "too-specialized" audience can be labeled as non-notable ... by people outside of that audience, who may accordingly be wholly unqualified to judge notability! Ditto things in for example early stages of technical development, where secondary sources may not yet exist. In short, Notability seems to be extremely subjective (despite assertions otherwise) and contrary to Encyclopaedic goals. -- 69.226.208.120 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there is an important point here that needs to be stated explicitly, because it does not come through loud and clear now:
Is there any problem with adding this? Dhaluza 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
...is a draft for rewriting this policy to make it less long and complex, and incorporate the undeletion policy as well. It should not be a substantial change, just a clearer version. Please comment on its talk page, and/or copyedit. >Radiant< 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have long been complaining that webcomics articles are deleted unfairly. In defence of this view I offer the following:
“ | February 15, 2007
Webcartoonist punks Wikipedia Kristofer Straub reports on the deletion of his webcomic Starslip Crisis:
Yes, it does look to me like the process is broken, why do you ask? |
” |
Posted on Reinder Dijkhuis's blog at http://rocr.xepher.net/weblog/archives/001935.html
Lee M 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
Why can't articles be purged completely and irrevocably from Wikipedia servers? What about copyvios? Or libel? Those should be purged completely and irrevocably. 74.38.32.195 08:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview#Overspecialization:
Basically, what I am proposing is a new comment/close for AfD's, something like "Delete on Hold" (I'm not attached to the name). This would be used for borderline deletion cases (similar to "weak delete/keep") and would give extra time to repair the article (cite, cleanup, etc) before it is deleted. This would have a corresponding template to be put on the article, similar to those put on untagged images. The article would be put into a category ("Deletions on hold" or something like that) and the article would have a set number of days (7, 10, 14, whatever sounds reasonable) before it is deleted if it is not repaired. If the article is repaired, there would have to be some process for determining this. Letting any editor remove the tag won't work, maybe another AfD?
The process would go something like this:
I think this could save some borderline deletion cases and could help get more articles to meet quality standards. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am posting a proposal derived in part from the notability discussion and in part from my recent experience at AfD patrolling. Let me say this: AfD patrol takes a long time (in fact, so long that I've had little or no opportunity for several weeks to contribute to articles with which I am or would like to be actively involved). So, please find below my proposed addition to WP deletion policy: I'm going to be somewhat long-winded, but the addition can be much shorter. Oh, and please note, this proposal is not intended to replace the idea expressed above by User:Mr.Z-man, nor is it intended as a parallel to it--it's a separate proposal.
Given that:
I propose that:
Any editor who wishes to nominate an article for deletion at WP:AFD be required to give advance notice of this intention to the article's creator and the primary contributor(s), if they are not the same.
In this advance notice, the editor can express the particular concerns s/he has about the article and request that the major problems be fixed, so that the article becomes viable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If, after the expiration of a designated period of time, the article is not improved to the editor's satisfaction, s/he may propose it for deletion via WP:AFD. If all notified authors refuse (in writing) to change the article prior to the expiration of that time, the editor may list the article at WP:AFD without further delay. A refusal or failure to act by the notified authors should not reflect negatively on the merits of the article at AfD. In order to serve its purpose, the "advance notice" should last no less than 48 hours, to give the authors time to address the issues raised.
Allow me to enumerate the advantages of this proposal:
Advantages
Qualifications
Proposed implementation A number of methods, used separately or in conjunction may be used to implement this proposal upon its acceptance (assuming, of course, that it is accepted):
I would be happy to hear comments and criticisms of this proposal, as well as any suggestions for changing it. -- Black Falcon 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Improve the article to meet WP standards or your contributions may be deleted (not sometime in the distant future as per WP guidelines, but within the span of a few days)! The truth is, I don't particularly care who improves the article, but since you seem to have the most interest in this topic (based on the article's edit history) and thus the most desire to see it kept, I'm turning to you.
In general the idea is good. However IMO it is nnecessry. We already have tags {{ unreferenced}}, {{ not verified}}, {{ prod}}, etc. If the contributors don't bother to review their contributions from time to time and address the concern, the article is a fair game to AFD. The existing way may be improved as follows:
I agree that in many cases AfD is a desperate attempt to force the authors to fix it. But wikipedia in over 1.5 mln articles now. Do we really have to strive to keep every scrap of it as it was in early days with the main purpose being growth? If a topic is notable, someone will recreate it, possibly in better way. Mukadderat 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.
Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on complaints that the deletion policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted, several people have revised the deletion policy page, to clarify it, remove redundancy, and incorporate material from a few related policies, in particular WP:PROD, WP:UNDEL and WP:CBLANK. This is not a change in policy, just a reworking of the relevant pages. The draft can be found at the link above; unless there are big objections, the intent is to move this over the present deletion policy as a new version; the second step would be to verify that it contains all relevant material from the related policies mentioned above, and complete the merge with a redirect. Please comment on the draft's talk page rather than here. >Radiant< 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the rationale behind Deletion For Privacy? Did this materialize because of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy?. 100110100 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgies t c 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Over a month ago a rewrite of this page was started at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Draft, with the aim to clean up the page, remove redundancies, and clarify. This is not a change in actual policy, just in the wording. This has been discussed on the draft's talk page, as well as WP:LAP, WP:AN and the village pump, and is part of a general aim to keep our policies up to date and simple. If you see any problems, unclarities, or inadvertent changes, please edit the page and fix them. >Radiant< 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, I am in the midst of making some changes to the page. I'm essentially copy-pasting some sentences and ideas from the previous version that were absent in this version (e.g., about blocked users), although I'm doing my best not to lengthen the page much. I think the re-inclusion of these parts would make WP:DEL more accessible to new users as the new version seems (at least to me) to be oriented more toward experienced users (i.e., it does not mention policies that seem commonsense to those generally familiar with Wikipedia--e.g., blocked users can't participate in XfD). Please let me know if you disagree with the changes I have made and will make, so that we can stop and discuss them. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the statement that the speedy criteria boil down to an obvious absence of encyclopedic content. The speedy criteria, as partially remarked on WP:SPEEDY, have been drawn narrowly as a result of various historical compromises regarding which material is safe to delete on sight and which material should be discussed before deletion. They're not intended to be criteria of what is encyclopedic and what isn't. For example, (i) a page giving 1,000,000,000 digits of π, (ii) an essay explaining why chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla and everyone should prefer it to vanilla, and (iii) a list of all persons in Adelaide would all be obviously unencyclopedic, but none of these things are speediable. Spacepotato 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The previous policy lists two cases when article deletion may be necessary because of WP:A failure:
To match the former policy, it seems to be clearer and more correct to reproduce these two cases. Spacepotato 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added two emphasis notes (that >1000 pages deleted per day, and that merging doesn't require discussion). These are common novice mistakes. The paragraph about who can participate in AFD discussions belongs in the AFD section, not the header. Note that contesting a speedy doesn't mean it can't get deleted anyway, and note that you don't need to know the CSDs by heart in order to PROD. It's certainly valid to PROD (or AFD) an article that would technically be a speedy. >Radiant< 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been a good deal of complaint recently at AfD about the arapid renomination of pages on AfD, until a successful vote can be (perhaps by change) obtained. I feel, and others there also feel, that this is an abuse of process. Perhaps now is the time to say specify something about this, and the wording I suggest is that material keep as a result of a AfD cannot be re-proposed for deletion by any process except deletion review for three months. (time adjustable--personally, i would choose 6 months, but this may be too much of a step. I'd also accept "at least one month" . I'm not sure to say about items closed as "no consensus". DGG 09:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have created article Internet troll squads, and it was marked for deletion. Could you take a look and tell your opinion? I think, this case might be interesting for defining deletion policies in general. Biophys 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
somewhere along the lines of "what arguments not to use in a deletion discussion". Anyone know what I'm talking about? Blueaster 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[3] Here you go. Risker 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)