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 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Currently under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves.
Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Incubation and Wikipedia:Drafts states that users may move articles into the draft space. But the article incubator explictly disallowed "articles which have not gone through a deletion process". Current deletion policy allows the movement of any article deemed to "not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards", does this mean CSD candidates, or can other cleanup candidates be removed from the main space? - hahnch e n 22:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion on draft deletion policy at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Policy_discussion:_When_is_it_appropriate_to_delete_stale_drafts.3F. It has been pointed out to me that this page might have been a better place to start that, but it's already ongoing, so let's continue it where it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that IP's can't create AfD's there needs to be a more formal process to recommend deletions for users to act upon if they agree to do so. The following articles should be going to AfD; Hartley Jackson, Amy Action, Steve Rackman, WrestleClash, Explosive Pro Wrestling, Melbourne City Wrestling and Pro Wrestling Alliance Australia. 101.182.144.48 ( talk) 09:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
There should be a discussion of policy and mechanism for an editor dleting pages in his sandbox. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 17:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A proposed user right, Wikipedia:Page mover, would expand the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect behind to non-administrators. This, in effect, is a speedy deletion. Interested editors can express their opinion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Typically when an article is deleted, the talk page is also deleted under WP:G8 at the same time. I've been wondering why we do this. Some have many good faith talk page posts, and we ought to preserve editor's contributions. I can't see any harm in having orphaned talk pages, and it might help other editors to see why the article was deleted. Thoughts? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?. Cunard ( talk) 08:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Incubation heading appropriate anymore? I don't think "Incubation" is a term used anymore. The way I've seen the discussion at AFD (and at MFD with userspace ones) is to "Draftify" which probably isn't as clear an idea as "incubation" is. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and we look forward to seeing you there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything about frequently making bad nominations, such as such as repeatedly making nominations that results in snow keep? If not, I propose adding the following sentence; "If you the vast majority of your nominations result in snow keeps or unanimous keeps, please fully read our policies and guidelines on deletion". 92.9.158.191 ( talk) 13:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please consider participating in proposal to eliminate one kind of AFDs, at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. The proposal is to always keep two-item disambiguation pages, like keeping redirects, rather than allowing deletion under current wp:TWODABS policy/guideline. -- do ncr am 17:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the current Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging section to "Merging to another article" and adding a new section "Merging to a list", with shortcut WP:ATD-L. Proposed wording:
An AFD may create unnecessary conflict between supporters of two extremes: eradicating everything on a topic vs. keeping a separate article on the topic, when merging the material to a list-article item might be a good compromise. This seems to have happened for articles on buildings or businesses where separate articles tend to attract overly long, promotional coverage, while list-articles on the type of topic seem reasonable. Deletion is an extreme that eliminates edit history (sometimes all of a new editor's contributions), discussions about sources, and even links to past AFDs. A compromise is to cover the topic in a list-article item, expanding or creating a section or table row as necessary. The redirect and its Talk page left behind preserve edit history and past debate. If no suitable target list-article exists, consider creating one with the topic as its first list-item. If the new list-item would be longer than others merely enumerated, consider creating a table in the target list-article with the topic as the first expanded table row. When a topic is naturally covered in more than one list-article, however, keeping a separate article to hold expanded content (avoiding duplication) becomes more reasonable.
Would something like this, perhaps dropping the first two sentences for brevity, be acceptable? -- do ncr am 18:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
In the general theory, non-notable and insignificant topics get deleted. A non-notable but significant topic with an article should in the general theory be converted to a redirect to a parent topic, with reliable material merged to the parent article. So a non-notable but significant topic is also suitable for a redirect and merge to a list, as I understand the concept. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
--
do
ncr
am
00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Abondon since 2013 how to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22sep ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we clarify this a bit? Two weeks? Two months? Half a year? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I submitted a proposal for use of a checklist, like the {{ DYK checklist}} for the Afd process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd process. I wasn't sure where to post it - here, Articles for deletion talk page, other, so I took it to village pump.
It would be great to get your input on this idea!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion underway on WT:CSD#Proposed new criterion about having a speedy deletion criterium added for pages or articles that were created in violation of the terms of use, namely these about undisclosed paid editing. Some people there have opined that such a provision works better as a general deletion criterium (i.e one that is applied through discussion) rather than speedy deletion, hence bringing the discussion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
You may be interested in this RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Based upon a discussion with Ritchie333, it seems that A7 is not considered to be a reason for viable reason for a CSD -- even if there are no reliable sources or if the article was previously deleted per AfD because the source was not considered notable. Discussion at User talk:Ritchie333#Andrée Algrain.
It seems that both the NewPagesFeed patrol and AfD process are overburdened, but if CSDs for A7 are going to be unilaterally deleted, that would be good to know and perhaps the deletion policy should be modified accordingly.— CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've made a sandbox for a future article, I discovered an existing article Samsung Galaxy S8, so I want to delete my sandbox for that article. Click here to see the sandbox I want to delete (WARNING: It's not the main sandbox, it's a subpage called GalaxyS8). Is there some administrator that can delete the sandbox? TheWikiContributor ( talk) 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
With the amount of human knowledge that exists, I would expect that the primary reason someone would want to contribute to Wikipedia would be to add information to existing articles, or create new articles. Interestingly enough there appears to be a significant number of editors who instead prefer to remove information and/or delete articles. I'm not talking about removing spam, vandalism, bigotry, etc. I'm talking about deleting articles (often without first tagging them, or proposing them for review) because the articles were not "good enough", or perhaps not considered notable enough (in their opinion). Is there some magic threshold of articles that we are trying to stay under? Have we decided that the easiest way to improve the ratio of Good articles is to simply delete the ones that don't measure up? This seems like a poor policy to me, and I find it demotivating as a Wikipedian, and as well as a past contributor. Why should I invest my time into making contributions (time and/or financial) to Wikipedia when editors are seemingly encouraged to delete the hard work of others, or suggest that they relocate the content to some other wiki? -- Thoric ( talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that for a long time we had a group of radical inclusionists who tended to frame deletion as an us-vs-them situation, which it never was except in their minds. They often described it as war, or a battle for Wikipedia's soul. It didn't end well, their project is basically dead and most of their supposed leaders ended up blocked for various kinds of shady things they did in service to their cause. Just mentioning it in case the real question being asked here is "aren't people who delete things basically evil?" We've already had that discussion and the answer is definently no. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing that a 24 hour gap be given to CSD nominated articles between their nomination and deletion.This will give newcomers from all time zones(most of the speedy deleted articles are made by this category of users) adequate time to challenge the deletion or improve their articles to make the clause for deletion void .During this time article can be made visible only to the nominator , exteended confirmed users and admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceradical ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Beeblebrox: May I ask all of you how many requests to userfy the deleted articles come to you?If you answers are really low then may be I may be really wrong and Ill then withdraw my proposal FORCE RADICAL ( talk) 09:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Request withdrawn05:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
On the French Wikipedia page called " Liste des visites à l'étranger du 14e dalaï-lama hors de l'Inde (translated to: Discussion: List of visits abroad by the 14th Dalai Lama outside India / Deletion)", I voted to oppose deletion, but my vote was moved to another section called "uncounted notices" (where it will not be counted) without notifying me by a ping or on my talk page. The English translation said, "Notices of contributors who are not registered or have fewer than fifty contributions in the articles at the time the debate is initiated are moved to the section entitled Uncounted notices, with the exception of the creator of the article." I have more than 50 contributions at the time of this debate, but the majority are on English Wikipedia. This notice on did not say contributions on the French Wikipedia only.
Question 1.
Wikipedia is a global effort by volunteers that can contribute in multiple languages, so why would French Wikipedia not allow for editing in non-French language Wikipedia articles for qualification to be eligible to vote on a deletion request?
Question 2.
Is this a valid eligibility requirement on French Wikipedia or any other language Wikipedia to require "more than 50 contributions at the time of this debate" on registered users?
Thank you/ Merci A ri gi bod ( talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Les avis formulés par (...) des comptes (...) ayant effectué moins de 50 contributions dans l’espace encyclopédique de Wikipédia en français au moment de la création de la proposition de suppression peuvent ne pas être pris en compte (...). Emphasis mine; a loose translation is:
Comments by users whose accounts have made less than 50 contributions to the mainspace of the French Wikipedia at the start of the deletion discussion may not be taken into account. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The amount of failed nominations on articles about recent and current events has risen to plentiful. WP:NOT#NEWS has been cited for deletion, yet multiple "keep" votes keep going and going. How do we limit the amount of failing nominations on such articles? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't know whether future events also apply, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian general election, 2018 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S8 were closed as "kept". Cited rationale for deletion was WP:CRYSTAL. I'm still trying to find failed noms on current events. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack (closed as "kept") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jiansheng Chen (closed as "no consensus" ;came after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiansheng Chen, which resulted as "delete"). Contrast those with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not My Presidents Day (closed as "merge") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 DCC market fire (closed as "redirect").
I'm wondering about the nature of article renomination. The relevant policy text is
But the way this reads is that it presupposes that the article has a problem or a shortcoming, that is "time to improve the page". What if there is no improvement needed or problem to address, if the deletion discussion results in a unanimous keep? If such a page is renominated, I would hope to see a part of the nomination devoted to what the nominator feels has changed since the last discussion. Perhaps this should be mandated. Disclosure; this came about after observances at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (3rd nomination) (05-2017) vs. ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (10-2015) (but note that afd 2 was an error withdrawn) so there's really only been 1 renomination despite the numbering). ValarianB ( talk) 12:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.
Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.
Why unused or obsolete file should deleted? Why not keep it for historical record, or for tracking what happen in the past? What is the disadvantage of keeping it? -- Ans ( talk) 11:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Here I'm proposing a new way of dealing with AfDs for articles for which there appear to be many sources in existence.
In some cases articles are put up for AfDs despite many sources (i.e. news, studies and books) using the article's term. There can be reasons for the deletion of articles despite of that such as:
For such cases I suggest a "discussion mode" of a specified duration (i.e. a few days) in which participants of the AfD are not allowed to vote but only allowed to discuss arguments for and against deletion, make counterarguments, cite relevant policies, research the article's topic (in the Web and in offline resources) and make suggestions for possible procedure (such as splitting, merging, renaming).
After this discussion phase is over the debate enters a new phase and participants are allowed to vote. I'd suggest creating a line (as below) under which members add their votes along with references to comments of the discussion-mode. To notify participants about the new phase they could be pinged. There could potentially also be a summary of arguments made/the debate earlier after phase #1 is finished. If this is successful it could potentially also be expanded to other types of (of AfDs & other) debates.
I hope this is clear enough - if not please ask. Maybe an exemplary discussion of this type would be useful.
Why this would be useful/needed:
Imo every article that took the time and effort of people to create deserves a proper argumentation/debate about its deletion and informed decision-making. By making sure that all sides are given time and space to make their arguments, research, cite relevant policies before the voting we can improve the decisions made and make sure that the votes are educated opinions and more in line with our policies.
For instance there is a problem with votes being made before specific points have been brought up (such as policies, counterarguments and sources) and with "peer-influence" (a general problem of Internet voting), see: Internet manipulation § Issues. Furthermore early participants may in some cases significantly swing discussions and sheer number of votes (e.g. due to canvassing, Internet trolls or sockpuppets) may manipulate or distort results.
Relevant to this is: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
I think this could significantly improve and protect Wikipedia and can not overstate how important and useful I think this would be.
I got this idea during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Intelligence debate.
What do you think of this suggestion and do you have any input on how it could be implemented best?
-- Fixuture ( talk) 22:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Recently, search results from selected sister projects—Wikivoyage (title matches only), Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikiquote—are now active/live. Right now, an option via user preferences to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results is proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). -- George Ho ( talk) 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Another proposal to include Wikibooks into the cross-wiki search engine is made ( Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results). -- George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 3 July 2017 (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 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Currently under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves.
Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Incubation and Wikipedia:Drafts states that users may move articles into the draft space. But the article incubator explictly disallowed "articles which have not gone through a deletion process". Current deletion policy allows the movement of any article deemed to "not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards", does this mean CSD candidates, or can other cleanup candidates be removed from the main space? - hahnch e n 22:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion on draft deletion policy at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Policy_discussion:_When_is_it_appropriate_to_delete_stale_drafts.3F. It has been pointed out to me that this page might have been a better place to start that, but it's already ongoing, so let's continue it where it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that IP's can't create AfD's there needs to be a more formal process to recommend deletions for users to act upon if they agree to do so. The following articles should be going to AfD; Hartley Jackson, Amy Action, Steve Rackman, WrestleClash, Explosive Pro Wrestling, Melbourne City Wrestling and Pro Wrestling Alliance Australia. 101.182.144.48 ( talk) 09:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
There should be a discussion of policy and mechanism for an editor dleting pages in his sandbox. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 17:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A proposed user right, Wikipedia:Page mover, would expand the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect behind to non-administrators. This, in effect, is a speedy deletion. Interested editors can express their opinion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Typically when an article is deleted, the talk page is also deleted under WP:G8 at the same time. I've been wondering why we do this. Some have many good faith talk page posts, and we ought to preserve editor's contributions. I can't see any harm in having orphaned talk pages, and it might help other editors to see why the article was deleted. Thoughts? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?. Cunard ( talk) 08:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Incubation heading appropriate anymore? I don't think "Incubation" is a term used anymore. The way I've seen the discussion at AFD (and at MFD with userspace ones) is to "Draftify" which probably isn't as clear an idea as "incubation" is. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and we look forward to seeing you there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything about frequently making bad nominations, such as such as repeatedly making nominations that results in snow keep? If not, I propose adding the following sentence; "If you the vast majority of your nominations result in snow keeps or unanimous keeps, please fully read our policies and guidelines on deletion". 92.9.158.191 ( talk) 13:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please consider participating in proposal to eliminate one kind of AFDs, at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. The proposal is to always keep two-item disambiguation pages, like keeping redirects, rather than allowing deletion under current wp:TWODABS policy/guideline. -- do ncr am 17:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the current Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging section to "Merging to another article" and adding a new section "Merging to a list", with shortcut WP:ATD-L. Proposed wording:
An AFD may create unnecessary conflict between supporters of two extremes: eradicating everything on a topic vs. keeping a separate article on the topic, when merging the material to a list-article item might be a good compromise. This seems to have happened for articles on buildings or businesses where separate articles tend to attract overly long, promotional coverage, while list-articles on the type of topic seem reasonable. Deletion is an extreme that eliminates edit history (sometimes all of a new editor's contributions), discussions about sources, and even links to past AFDs. A compromise is to cover the topic in a list-article item, expanding or creating a section or table row as necessary. The redirect and its Talk page left behind preserve edit history and past debate. If no suitable target list-article exists, consider creating one with the topic as its first list-item. If the new list-item would be longer than others merely enumerated, consider creating a table in the target list-article with the topic as the first expanded table row. When a topic is naturally covered in more than one list-article, however, keeping a separate article to hold expanded content (avoiding duplication) becomes more reasonable.
Would something like this, perhaps dropping the first two sentences for brevity, be acceptable? -- do ncr am 18:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
In the general theory, non-notable and insignificant topics get deleted. A non-notable but significant topic with an article should in the general theory be converted to a redirect to a parent topic, with reliable material merged to the parent article. So a non-notable but significant topic is also suitable for a redirect and merge to a list, as I understand the concept. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
--
do
ncr
am
00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Abondon since 2013 how to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22sep ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we clarify this a bit? Two weeks? Two months? Half a year? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I submitted a proposal for use of a checklist, like the {{ DYK checklist}} for the Afd process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd process. I wasn't sure where to post it - here, Articles for deletion talk page, other, so I took it to village pump.
It would be great to get your input on this idea!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion underway on WT:CSD#Proposed new criterion about having a speedy deletion criterium added for pages or articles that were created in violation of the terms of use, namely these about undisclosed paid editing. Some people there have opined that such a provision works better as a general deletion criterium (i.e one that is applied through discussion) rather than speedy deletion, hence bringing the discussion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
You may be interested in this RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Based upon a discussion with Ritchie333, it seems that A7 is not considered to be a reason for viable reason for a CSD -- even if there are no reliable sources or if the article was previously deleted per AfD because the source was not considered notable. Discussion at User talk:Ritchie333#Andrée Algrain.
It seems that both the NewPagesFeed patrol and AfD process are overburdened, but if CSDs for A7 are going to be unilaterally deleted, that would be good to know and perhaps the deletion policy should be modified accordingly.— CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've made a sandbox for a future article, I discovered an existing article Samsung Galaxy S8, so I want to delete my sandbox for that article. Click here to see the sandbox I want to delete (WARNING: It's not the main sandbox, it's a subpage called GalaxyS8). Is there some administrator that can delete the sandbox? TheWikiContributor ( talk) 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
With the amount of human knowledge that exists, I would expect that the primary reason someone would want to contribute to Wikipedia would be to add information to existing articles, or create new articles. Interestingly enough there appears to be a significant number of editors who instead prefer to remove information and/or delete articles. I'm not talking about removing spam, vandalism, bigotry, etc. I'm talking about deleting articles (often without first tagging them, or proposing them for review) because the articles were not "good enough", or perhaps not considered notable enough (in their opinion). Is there some magic threshold of articles that we are trying to stay under? Have we decided that the easiest way to improve the ratio of Good articles is to simply delete the ones that don't measure up? This seems like a poor policy to me, and I find it demotivating as a Wikipedian, and as well as a past contributor. Why should I invest my time into making contributions (time and/or financial) to Wikipedia when editors are seemingly encouraged to delete the hard work of others, or suggest that they relocate the content to some other wiki? -- Thoric ( talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that for a long time we had a group of radical inclusionists who tended to frame deletion as an us-vs-them situation, which it never was except in their minds. They often described it as war, or a battle for Wikipedia's soul. It didn't end well, their project is basically dead and most of their supposed leaders ended up blocked for various kinds of shady things they did in service to their cause. Just mentioning it in case the real question being asked here is "aren't people who delete things basically evil?" We've already had that discussion and the answer is definently no. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing that a 24 hour gap be given to CSD nominated articles between their nomination and deletion.This will give newcomers from all time zones(most of the speedy deleted articles are made by this category of users) adequate time to challenge the deletion or improve their articles to make the clause for deletion void .During this time article can be made visible only to the nominator , exteended confirmed users and admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceradical ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Beeblebrox: May I ask all of you how many requests to userfy the deleted articles come to you?If you answers are really low then may be I may be really wrong and Ill then withdraw my proposal FORCE RADICAL ( talk) 09:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Request withdrawn05:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
On the French Wikipedia page called " Liste des visites à l'étranger du 14e dalaï-lama hors de l'Inde (translated to: Discussion: List of visits abroad by the 14th Dalai Lama outside India / Deletion)", I voted to oppose deletion, but my vote was moved to another section called "uncounted notices" (where it will not be counted) without notifying me by a ping or on my talk page. The English translation said, "Notices of contributors who are not registered or have fewer than fifty contributions in the articles at the time the debate is initiated are moved to the section entitled Uncounted notices, with the exception of the creator of the article." I have more than 50 contributions at the time of this debate, but the majority are on English Wikipedia. This notice on did not say contributions on the French Wikipedia only.
Question 1.
Wikipedia is a global effort by volunteers that can contribute in multiple languages, so why would French Wikipedia not allow for editing in non-French language Wikipedia articles for qualification to be eligible to vote on a deletion request?
Question 2.
Is this a valid eligibility requirement on French Wikipedia or any other language Wikipedia to require "more than 50 contributions at the time of this debate" on registered users?
Thank you/ Merci A ri gi bod ( talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Les avis formulés par (...) des comptes (...) ayant effectué moins de 50 contributions dans l’espace encyclopédique de Wikipédia en français au moment de la création de la proposition de suppression peuvent ne pas être pris en compte (...). Emphasis mine; a loose translation is:
Comments by users whose accounts have made less than 50 contributions to the mainspace of the French Wikipedia at the start of the deletion discussion may not be taken into account. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The amount of failed nominations on articles about recent and current events has risen to plentiful. WP:NOT#NEWS has been cited for deletion, yet multiple "keep" votes keep going and going. How do we limit the amount of failing nominations on such articles? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't know whether future events also apply, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian general election, 2018 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S8 were closed as "kept". Cited rationale for deletion was WP:CRYSTAL. I'm still trying to find failed noms on current events. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack (closed as "kept") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jiansheng Chen (closed as "no consensus" ;came after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiansheng Chen, which resulted as "delete"). Contrast those with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not My Presidents Day (closed as "merge") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 DCC market fire (closed as "redirect").
I'm wondering about the nature of article renomination. The relevant policy text is
But the way this reads is that it presupposes that the article has a problem or a shortcoming, that is "time to improve the page". What if there is no improvement needed or problem to address, if the deletion discussion results in a unanimous keep? If such a page is renominated, I would hope to see a part of the nomination devoted to what the nominator feels has changed since the last discussion. Perhaps this should be mandated. Disclosure; this came about after observances at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (3rd nomination) (05-2017) vs. ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (10-2015) (but note that afd 2 was an error withdrawn) so there's really only been 1 renomination despite the numbering). ValarianB ( talk) 12:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.
Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.
Why unused or obsolete file should deleted? Why not keep it for historical record, or for tracking what happen in the past? What is the disadvantage of keeping it? -- Ans ( talk) 11:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Here I'm proposing a new way of dealing with AfDs for articles for which there appear to be many sources in existence.
In some cases articles are put up for AfDs despite many sources (i.e. news, studies and books) using the article's term. There can be reasons for the deletion of articles despite of that such as:
For such cases I suggest a "discussion mode" of a specified duration (i.e. a few days) in which participants of the AfD are not allowed to vote but only allowed to discuss arguments for and against deletion, make counterarguments, cite relevant policies, research the article's topic (in the Web and in offline resources) and make suggestions for possible procedure (such as splitting, merging, renaming).
After this discussion phase is over the debate enters a new phase and participants are allowed to vote. I'd suggest creating a line (as below) under which members add their votes along with references to comments of the discussion-mode. To notify participants about the new phase they could be pinged. There could potentially also be a summary of arguments made/the debate earlier after phase #1 is finished. If this is successful it could potentially also be expanded to other types of (of AfDs & other) debates.
I hope this is clear enough - if not please ask. Maybe an exemplary discussion of this type would be useful.
Why this would be useful/needed:
Imo every article that took the time and effort of people to create deserves a proper argumentation/debate about its deletion and informed decision-making. By making sure that all sides are given time and space to make their arguments, research, cite relevant policies before the voting we can improve the decisions made and make sure that the votes are educated opinions and more in line with our policies.
For instance there is a problem with votes being made before specific points have been brought up (such as policies, counterarguments and sources) and with "peer-influence" (a general problem of Internet voting), see: Internet manipulation § Issues. Furthermore early participants may in some cases significantly swing discussions and sheer number of votes (e.g. due to canvassing, Internet trolls or sockpuppets) may manipulate or distort results.
Relevant to this is: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
I think this could significantly improve and protect Wikipedia and can not overstate how important and useful I think this would be.
I got this idea during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Intelligence debate.
What do you think of this suggestion and do you have any input on how it could be implemented best?
-- Fixuture ( talk) 22:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Recently, search results from selected sister projects—Wikivoyage (title matches only), Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikiquote—are now active/live. Right now, an option via user preferences to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results is proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). -- George Ho ( talk) 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Another proposal to include Wikibooks into the cross-wiki search engine is made ( Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results). -- George Ho ( talk) 00:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)