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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
Hello all -- I got into this discussion in the context of a particular article. I was asked to bring the conversation here. The article had lain fallow for eight years. Here is my comment: "If threat of deletion is not enough, then adding a tag or category, or leaving a tag in place, is unlikely to help this list, some members of which go back to 2006:
We need to deal with these items one-by-one, as the editor has done. The alternative is to postulate that all of them have a valid reference somewhere on the web, and delete all million reference tags.
The response was this: "There are over 5 million articles on WP so your numbers are not so shocking in that context. These fix-it-now-or-delete-it ultimatums are simply not in line with deletion policy. If you disagree, we can continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy."
I do disagree. We might well take some advice from our own article, SMART criteria. When we set out to improve WP, we need to address five things:
We don't assign tasks to individuals, but we do put up queues that we ask people to address. When we put up measurements of progress, people are more likely to get involved. What you choose to measure is what you improve. When a tag sits on an article for five years, I don't see the danger of putting a week deadline to fix it or forget it. We put deadlines on new articles. The same standards should apply to musty old ones. Rhadow ( talk) 14:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kvng and TenPoundHammer This may interest you. Rhadow ( talk) 14:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello Kvng -- I too have been a project manager. I am not speaking as a PM, but as a systems engineer.
WP has two constituencies, the editors and the readers. We owe our readers an encyclopedia they can trust. We owe our editors a fun place to work according to their ability and inclination. As a broad generalization, it's more fun to create a new article than fix an old one. You can observe that when you read editors' self descriptions. "I have created n articles." We have created an environment in which it is easier to create a new article than click click click to the backlog. Once you get there, it takes more skill (apparently) to fix an old article than to face a clean screen and make something new. We're in a situation now in which I guess that half of new articles go into the dustbin (I don't know where to find the stats). Fully a quarter of all articles have a tag, some going back more than a decade. Think of the all the wasted blood, sweat, toil, and tears that went into the new articles. If we could figure a way to guide new editors to the old stuff and give them some psychic rewards for addressing them, the entire encyclopedia would benefit. When the procedure for new editors changes, we need a way to give them an easy pathway into the archives and a set of rewards for fixing the old stuff. Perhaps an automatic barnstar for fifty references added and tag removed. I'm thinking here of easy process pathways and positive feedback, not a job assignment system, like work. Waddaya think? Rhadow ( talk) 18:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Above, you'll find a suggestion that PRODding an old article in hopes of a quiet deletion is the wrong approach. The alternative, after a good faith effort to find references, is to bring it to AfD. The results will be much ink spilled and teeth gnashing. Here is a list of families of unreferenced articles, none of which have seem to have English language references and each of which have had a PROD reverted without any improvement, only an assertion that the topic is notable:
These articles are likely never to grow beyond stubs, even with references. They could be consolidated into lists, where the standard of notability is lower. A fifth of articles are flawed in some way. If we don't improve or remove them, the credibility of the entire library will suffer. Rhadow ( talk) 12:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, Kvng so if there is a class of articles with the same problem, PROD or AfD is inappropriate in your view. The result would be uneven coverage. Here is the approach I took with Tram stops: I put it to RfC. You can find the example at Talk:Iyoki Station. We are going through a similar set of examples of cricketers who have had only one first-class appearance and no sources except a single scorecard. Rhadow ( talk) 16:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Мот Сапоненко яков александрович ( talk) 17:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
•An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially does not belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion
The lack of due process turned shooting down new pages a constant sport at Wikipedia. A page should be challenged, with requests for citation for instance, before being proposed for deletion. There is much better chance of excellent content emerging from this challenge process than from the current deletionism that has taken hold in the Wikisphere. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 01:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Changes are necessary in order to more easily clear disputes (including deletion disputes) on self-serving articles, because such edits cannot be entirely eliminated. I am signaling here a case of self-promoting by Wikipedia itself: Whoever made that Disruptive Innovation entry, placed Wikipedia in the academia category (which is false) just to put it on top of the list -- and I could iterate 3 more case of self promoting articles I encountered in the last two months only.
Simiprof ( talk) 21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi all
I've been looking at the deletion policy after working to improve some articles that were nominated for deletion. The new editors who created the articles were all confused about the process and I want to try to help to make it clearer for them. I'm trying to understand if there is a set decision tree process for articles that have been decided should not be included in mainspace. My question is if the AFD discussion decides the article should not be included in mainspace, does not meet speedy deletion criteria and does not include defamatory or copyright infringing materials is it policy that the 'alternatives to deletion' (Editing and discussion, Tagging, Merging, Redirection, Incubation, Other projects, Archiving) have to be exhausted first before deletion happens? The policy page appears to be ambiguous as to whether these alternatives must be exhausted first or if they are simply options for the admin to chose if they want.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 21:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion to amend the usage guidelines for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list located here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate being directed to the place where they are! -- Mathmensch ( talk) 07:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Other projects section describes the Transwiki process, which is marked as historical and hasn't been used since 2012. This is the same on most other WMF projects, and the meta page hasn't been updated in just as long. Should the section be removed altogether or marked in some way to show that it is no longer being used (and if so what would be the best way to do that)? I did just blank the section but then I remembered that it has at least one redirect pointing there ( WP:ATD-TRANS), and I don't want to break links. ansh 666 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
===RfC on Transwiki=== {{RFC|policy}} Should all Transwiki processes (but not "move to commons"), templates, categories, policy pages and mentions in other policy be completely removed and/or marked historical? ---- ===Survey===
I see no reason not to do this RfC as above, but it is also something that could possibly be objected to. No-one is even commenting on deletion nominations of some Transwiki templates. Consider this a way to get consensus to edit a number of pages and delete a number of templates and categories all at once. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 21:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I already left some of the more obvious valid topics, some are fine, others not. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 10:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
{{RFC|policy}}
Should all Transwiki processes (but not "move to commons"), templates, categories, policy pages and mentions in other policy be completely removed and/or marked historical? ~~~~~
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
SoWhy: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to
reliable sources, including
neologisms,
original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves
hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"
What's the important difference? How is something impossible to attribute to a reliable source? Notability is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
; that should be sufficient to govern coverage. How is one to evaluate the "possibility" of a topic being covered in a reliable source?
It seems like perhaps a different, more specific word is meant. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."(emphasis mine). I am currently doing a copy edit of that section to reduce redundancy; I will post a diff here when I am finished. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I read "cannot possibly" similarly to SoWhy above. To me it means that there can't exist a source (even if we invented one) which could verify the claim. For e.g. NOR, we couldn't verify a novel claim in a wikipedia article from an outside source, because then it wouldn't be a novel claim introduced in a wikipedia article anymore. Contrary to the claim made above, this is not a nuanced analysis. Rather, it is a categorical exclusion and so I think phrasing which implies otherwise would damage the meaning of the section. Protonk ( talk) 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Is an inappropriate redirect, e.g. from a program name to one component of that program, eligible for speedy deletion. Is there a special process for deleting the redirect? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Every edit on Wikipedia is "based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary". All admins and all functionaries are members of the community. So that leaves "based on the judgment of the community", and that isn't worth mentioning because all edits on wikipedia are made based on the judgment of the community (or at least one specific member of that community).
Edward Mordake (
talk)
14:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a page in mind that I think shouldn't be a standalone article, but should still be a redirect elsewhere. So let's say I do so, and a few days later, someone else notices and reverts the change (at which point, maybe I can gather consensus for it, maybe not). There's a bot that will come along and change all the incoming redirects to avoid double redirects (I don't know exactly how often it runs). But if my change is reverted after the bot has made its changes, is there any process (automatic or otherwise) for restoring the bot's changes as well? Do I need to be worried about this? Thanks in advance, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Joe Roe: I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Obviously calling my edit "vandalism" (that is what the second "v" stands for, right?) is inappropriate, but I don't know how I could be "jumping the gun" on anything. Frankly that "discussion" has me a little confused: I thought I was asking a question about the appropriate use of the AFD process, not proposing an amendment to any policy or guideline, and yet a bunch of people have starting casting "support" !votes (and one one or two even "oppose" !votes) on some kind of proposal they read into my question. The comments can be read in a manner that adequately answers my original question, so I'm not complaining about that, but I'm not prematurely implementing a proposed amendment that was apparently never actually proposed. If I had meant to propose a change to the deletion policy, I would have come here, not there. And since I don't think I was actually making a proposal to amend the policy ... well, I also don't think there will be any point in the future where my recent edit (which was only related to WT:AFD thread in that the latter convinced me the former would be uncontroversial) is not jumping the gun.
Anyway, I don't think this is even a substantial change to the policy, but rather a simple fix of some fairly clumsy writing: either all possible meanings of "redirect" are covered under one or the other of "deletion" and "merger", or the technical distinction that non-admins can revert blanking and redirecting is irrelevant because cases like this are also covered under the latter even though they can't be undone by non-admins. (I don't know if I am able to show you, but if I recall correctly Spartaz initially deleted the page and then immediately recreated it as a redirect, which would I guess be a fifth category...?)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I searched the archives of both here and WP:VPP and couldn't find much, so I apologise if this has been discussed recently. From what I can tell, this is the beginning of WP:ATD in its present form, and it has remained largely the same ever since, albeit with a few additions and amendments over the years. I don't know if it had consensus, and I see no point in trying to find out, because it won't change anything even if there was consensus: it's the consensus of today that matters, not the consensus of 11 years ago. And I'm not entirely convinced that the community actually agrees with its status as policy: there are many, many cases of what would appear to be WP:IGNORINGATD cases (which I actually find a bit strange as I was under the impression that WP:ATA is a widely accepted essay on deletion?).
The topic is already covered in Gunner_de_Medici. So why not redirect there?
the Heaven Hill article already mentions the brand.
The parent article already mentions it. Same as above.
There are likely many more out there (i do remember articles having merge/redirect targets getting speedied under A7, but can't remember what they were). I also noticed that an admin said here that many editors ignore ATD entirely, and I have to concur. I have to question WP:ATD's status as policy, if it's ignored so easily so often. I can think of no other policy where you can easily get away with pretending it doesn't exist. ATD may be a good principle, but from what I can see it's far from a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Policy is supposed to reflect the norm. not dictate it, no? Thoughts? Adam9007 ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages. Are you saying that isn't the case? Also, there's a difference between deciding against ATD and not even considering it. The problem here is that it's often not even being considered. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it has remained on a prominent policy page for more than a decade without serious contention (?) would also suggest that it is widely acceptedThat sounds to me like consensus by silence, which, even after 11 years, is at best a weak form of consensus. Silence also doesn't necessarily mean consent. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
A fewor rather a?! ∯WBG converse 11:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is being misleading or confusing (in a way that can't be fixed) not a reason for deletion? Or is this supposed to be part of the "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" reason? And articles with so many spelling errors and broken grammar that they help absolutely nobody? Alexis Jazz ( talk) 03:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames actually still policy? It isn't set out as a normal policy page and looks like it hasn't been touched for years. If it is still "live" it should be moved to the notability guidelines. Spinning Spark 18:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Jessica Starr went public with her health struggles following laser eye surgery. She ended up committed suicide due to these severe complications. The public is at risk due to the laser eye surgeries and this article about Jessica is important. I would like to fill it in, or see someone else do so, as I have time. The article ought ought to be kept up on Wikipedia. Juliet Sabine ( talk) 03:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a proposal to show the inline message about templates nominated at TfD only to some users. You are invited to comment in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Hide tfd-inline for unregistered users. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Is a page being completely the product of an Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) a standard reason for deletion? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree with Thryduulf on this. Those taking the other position seem to be saying this: An article may be written that to experienced editors appears perfectly neutrally written, with copper-bottomed sourcing; but nevertheless, if written by the wrong people with the wrong motives, the text somehow exudes a promotional ... aura that will dispose naive readers favourably towards the company or product, and dispose more sophisticated readers against Wikipedia. I don't believe in this paranormal phenomenon : Bhunacat10 (talk), 14:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have created an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions to say that deletions under community general sanctions that bypass deletion discussion must meet the requirements for speedy deletion and be reviewable at deletion review. Cunard ( talk) 09:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.
There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard ( talk) 07:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there any way to delete an edit on an articles history? It’s outdated and I feel inappropriate. Blueblue998 ( talk) 00:36, 7 June 2019 (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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
Hello all -- I got into this discussion in the context of a particular article. I was asked to bring the conversation here. The article had lain fallow for eight years. Here is my comment: "If threat of deletion is not enough, then adding a tag or category, or leaving a tag in place, is unlikely to help this list, some members of which go back to 2006:
We need to deal with these items one-by-one, as the editor has done. The alternative is to postulate that all of them have a valid reference somewhere on the web, and delete all million reference tags.
The response was this: "There are over 5 million articles on WP so your numbers are not so shocking in that context. These fix-it-now-or-delete-it ultimatums are simply not in line with deletion policy. If you disagree, we can continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy."
I do disagree. We might well take some advice from our own article, SMART criteria. When we set out to improve WP, we need to address five things:
We don't assign tasks to individuals, but we do put up queues that we ask people to address. When we put up measurements of progress, people are more likely to get involved. What you choose to measure is what you improve. When a tag sits on an article for five years, I don't see the danger of putting a week deadline to fix it or forget it. We put deadlines on new articles. The same standards should apply to musty old ones. Rhadow ( talk) 14:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kvng and TenPoundHammer This may interest you. Rhadow ( talk) 14:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello Kvng -- I too have been a project manager. I am not speaking as a PM, but as a systems engineer.
WP has two constituencies, the editors and the readers. We owe our readers an encyclopedia they can trust. We owe our editors a fun place to work according to their ability and inclination. As a broad generalization, it's more fun to create a new article than fix an old one. You can observe that when you read editors' self descriptions. "I have created n articles." We have created an environment in which it is easier to create a new article than click click click to the backlog. Once you get there, it takes more skill (apparently) to fix an old article than to face a clean screen and make something new. We're in a situation now in which I guess that half of new articles go into the dustbin (I don't know where to find the stats). Fully a quarter of all articles have a tag, some going back more than a decade. Think of the all the wasted blood, sweat, toil, and tears that went into the new articles. If we could figure a way to guide new editors to the old stuff and give them some psychic rewards for addressing them, the entire encyclopedia would benefit. When the procedure for new editors changes, we need a way to give them an easy pathway into the archives and a set of rewards for fixing the old stuff. Perhaps an automatic barnstar for fifty references added and tag removed. I'm thinking here of easy process pathways and positive feedback, not a job assignment system, like work. Waddaya think? Rhadow ( talk) 18:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Above, you'll find a suggestion that PRODding an old article in hopes of a quiet deletion is the wrong approach. The alternative, after a good faith effort to find references, is to bring it to AfD. The results will be much ink spilled and teeth gnashing. Here is a list of families of unreferenced articles, none of which have seem to have English language references and each of which have had a PROD reverted without any improvement, only an assertion that the topic is notable:
These articles are likely never to grow beyond stubs, even with references. They could be consolidated into lists, where the standard of notability is lower. A fifth of articles are flawed in some way. If we don't improve or remove them, the credibility of the entire library will suffer. Rhadow ( talk) 12:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, Kvng so if there is a class of articles with the same problem, PROD or AfD is inappropriate in your view. The result would be uneven coverage. Here is the approach I took with Tram stops: I put it to RfC. You can find the example at Talk:Iyoki Station. We are going through a similar set of examples of cricketers who have had only one first-class appearance and no sources except a single scorecard. Rhadow ( talk) 16:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Мот Сапоненко яков александрович ( talk) 17:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
•An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially does not belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion
The lack of due process turned shooting down new pages a constant sport at Wikipedia. A page should be challenged, with requests for citation for instance, before being proposed for deletion. There is much better chance of excellent content emerging from this challenge process than from the current deletionism that has taken hold in the Wikisphere. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 01:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Changes are necessary in order to more easily clear disputes (including deletion disputes) on self-serving articles, because such edits cannot be entirely eliminated. I am signaling here a case of self-promoting by Wikipedia itself: Whoever made that Disruptive Innovation entry, placed Wikipedia in the academia category (which is false) just to put it on top of the list -- and I could iterate 3 more case of self promoting articles I encountered in the last two months only.
Simiprof ( talk) 21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi all
I've been looking at the deletion policy after working to improve some articles that were nominated for deletion. The new editors who created the articles were all confused about the process and I want to try to help to make it clearer for them. I'm trying to understand if there is a set decision tree process for articles that have been decided should not be included in mainspace. My question is if the AFD discussion decides the article should not be included in mainspace, does not meet speedy deletion criteria and does not include defamatory or copyright infringing materials is it policy that the 'alternatives to deletion' (Editing and discussion, Tagging, Merging, Redirection, Incubation, Other projects, Archiving) have to be exhausted first before deletion happens? The policy page appears to be ambiguous as to whether these alternatives must be exhausted first or if they are simply options for the admin to chose if they want.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 21:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion to amend the usage guidelines for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list located here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate being directed to the place where they are! -- Mathmensch ( talk) 07:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Other projects section describes the Transwiki process, which is marked as historical and hasn't been used since 2012. This is the same on most other WMF projects, and the meta page hasn't been updated in just as long. Should the section be removed altogether or marked in some way to show that it is no longer being used (and if so what would be the best way to do that)? I did just blank the section but then I remembered that it has at least one redirect pointing there ( WP:ATD-TRANS), and I don't want to break links. ansh 666 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
===RfC on Transwiki=== {{RFC|policy}} Should all Transwiki processes (but not "move to commons"), templates, categories, policy pages and mentions in other policy be completely removed and/or marked historical? ---- ===Survey===
I see no reason not to do this RfC as above, but it is also something that could possibly be objected to. No-one is even commenting on deletion nominations of some Transwiki templates. Consider this a way to get consensus to edit a number of pages and delete a number of templates and categories all at once. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 21:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I already left some of the more obvious valid topics, some are fine, others not. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 10:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
{{RFC|policy}}
Should all Transwiki processes (but not "move to commons"), templates, categories, policy pages and mentions in other policy be completely removed and/or marked historical? ~~~~~
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
SoWhy: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to
reliable sources, including
neologisms,
original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves
hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"
What's the important difference? How is something impossible to attribute to a reliable source? Notability is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
; that should be sufficient to govern coverage. How is one to evaluate the "possibility" of a topic being covered in a reliable source?
It seems like perhaps a different, more specific word is meant. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."(emphasis mine). I am currently doing a copy edit of that section to reduce redundancy; I will post a diff here when I am finished. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I read "cannot possibly" similarly to SoWhy above. To me it means that there can't exist a source (even if we invented one) which could verify the claim. For e.g. NOR, we couldn't verify a novel claim in a wikipedia article from an outside source, because then it wouldn't be a novel claim introduced in a wikipedia article anymore. Contrary to the claim made above, this is not a nuanced analysis. Rather, it is a categorical exclusion and so I think phrasing which implies otherwise would damage the meaning of the section. Protonk ( talk) 20:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Is an inappropriate redirect, e.g. from a program name to one component of that program, eligible for speedy deletion. Is there a special process for deleting the redirect? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Every edit on Wikipedia is "based on the judgment of the community, an administrator, or another functionary". All admins and all functionaries are members of the community. So that leaves "based on the judgment of the community", and that isn't worth mentioning because all edits on wikipedia are made based on the judgment of the community (or at least one specific member of that community).
Edward Mordake (
talk)
14:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a page in mind that I think shouldn't be a standalone article, but should still be a redirect elsewhere. So let's say I do so, and a few days later, someone else notices and reverts the change (at which point, maybe I can gather consensus for it, maybe not). There's a bot that will come along and change all the incoming redirects to avoid double redirects (I don't know exactly how often it runs). But if my change is reverted after the bot has made its changes, is there any process (automatic or otherwise) for restoring the bot's changes as well? Do I need to be worried about this? Thanks in advance, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Joe Roe: I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Obviously calling my edit "vandalism" (that is what the second "v" stands for, right?) is inappropriate, but I don't know how I could be "jumping the gun" on anything. Frankly that "discussion" has me a little confused: I thought I was asking a question about the appropriate use of the AFD process, not proposing an amendment to any policy or guideline, and yet a bunch of people have starting casting "support" !votes (and one one or two even "oppose" !votes) on some kind of proposal they read into my question. The comments can be read in a manner that adequately answers my original question, so I'm not complaining about that, but I'm not prematurely implementing a proposed amendment that was apparently never actually proposed. If I had meant to propose a change to the deletion policy, I would have come here, not there. And since I don't think I was actually making a proposal to amend the policy ... well, I also don't think there will be any point in the future where my recent edit (which was only related to WT:AFD thread in that the latter convinced me the former would be uncontroversial) is not jumping the gun.
Anyway, I don't think this is even a substantial change to the policy, but rather a simple fix of some fairly clumsy writing: either all possible meanings of "redirect" are covered under one or the other of "deletion" and "merger", or the technical distinction that non-admins can revert blanking and redirecting is irrelevant because cases like this are also covered under the latter even though they can't be undone by non-admins. (I don't know if I am able to show you, but if I recall correctly Spartaz initially deleted the page and then immediately recreated it as a redirect, which would I guess be a fifth category...?)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I searched the archives of both here and WP:VPP and couldn't find much, so I apologise if this has been discussed recently. From what I can tell, this is the beginning of WP:ATD in its present form, and it has remained largely the same ever since, albeit with a few additions and amendments over the years. I don't know if it had consensus, and I see no point in trying to find out, because it won't change anything even if there was consensus: it's the consensus of today that matters, not the consensus of 11 years ago. And I'm not entirely convinced that the community actually agrees with its status as policy: there are many, many cases of what would appear to be WP:IGNORINGATD cases (which I actually find a bit strange as I was under the impression that WP:ATA is a widely accepted essay on deletion?).
The topic is already covered in Gunner_de_Medici. So why not redirect there?
the Heaven Hill article already mentions the brand.
The parent article already mentions it. Same as above.
There are likely many more out there (i do remember articles having merge/redirect targets getting speedied under A7, but can't remember what they were). I also noticed that an admin said here that many editors ignore ATD entirely, and I have to concur. I have to question WP:ATD's status as policy, if it's ignored so easily so often. I can think of no other policy where you can easily get away with pretending it doesn't exist. ATD may be a good principle, but from what I can see it's far from a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Policy is supposed to reflect the norm. not dictate it, no? Thoughts? Adam9007 ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages. Are you saying that isn't the case? Also, there's a difference between deciding against ATD and not even considering it. The problem here is that it's often not even being considered. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it has remained on a prominent policy page for more than a decade without serious contention (?) would also suggest that it is widely acceptedThat sounds to me like consensus by silence, which, even after 11 years, is at best a weak form of consensus. Silence also doesn't necessarily mean consent. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
A fewor rather a?! ∯WBG converse 11:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is being misleading or confusing (in a way that can't be fixed) not a reason for deletion? Or is this supposed to be part of the "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" reason? And articles with so many spelling errors and broken grammar that they help absolutely nobody? Alexis Jazz ( talk) 03:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames actually still policy? It isn't set out as a normal policy page and looks like it hasn't been touched for years. If it is still "live" it should be moved to the notability guidelines. Spinning Spark 18:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Jessica Starr went public with her health struggles following laser eye surgery. She ended up committed suicide due to these severe complications. The public is at risk due to the laser eye surgeries and this article about Jessica is important. I would like to fill it in, or see someone else do so, as I have time. The article ought ought to be kept up on Wikipedia. Juliet Sabine ( talk) 03:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a proposal to show the inline message about templates nominated at TfD only to some users. You are invited to comment in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Hide tfd-inline for unregistered users. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Is a page being completely the product of an Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) a standard reason for deletion? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree with Thryduulf on this. Those taking the other position seem to be saying this: An article may be written that to experienced editors appears perfectly neutrally written, with copper-bottomed sourcing; but nevertheless, if written by the wrong people with the wrong motives, the text somehow exudes a promotional ... aura that will dispose naive readers favourably towards the company or product, and dispose more sophisticated readers against Wikipedia. I don't believe in this paranormal phenomenon : Bhunacat10 (talk), 14:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have created an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions to say that deletions under community general sanctions that bypass deletion discussion must meet the requirements for speedy deletion and be reviewable at deletion review. Cunard ( talk) 09:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.
There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard ( talk) 07:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there any way to delete an edit on an articles history? It’s outdated and I feel inappropriate. Blueblue998 ( talk) 00:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)