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 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
On a current AfD, there is a non-standard warning template, using {{ warning}} with custom text: "Comments not relating to the merits of this specific article (e.g. "keeping this makes Wikipedia look bad", "deleting this makes Wikipedia look bad", "Wikipedia is in the pocket of the Democrats", "Wikipedia is in the pocket of the Republicans") may be moved to the talkpage by any uninvolved user."
This does not cite any policy or guideline and seems to be a significant departure from WP:DEL, i.e. deputizing random users to simply remove !votes for being based on WP:ATA (which is not even a policy, but an essay. What is the meaning of this? Has WP:DEL been changed? jp× g 11:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
As I am Ethel-Michele de Villiers I request you to remove all information about me - all content was placed without my personal consent at any time. In addition I forbid you or anyone else to enter any information in Wiki regarding my person/cv/ at any time now or in the future. Thank you for your understanding! Ethel-Michele de Villiers 46.5.109.111 ( talk) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Mention of de Villiers by name in Bovine Meat and Milk Factors has been removed, as there is no need to name researchers in the text if the references name the journal article authors. David notMD ( talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I write in the wrong place but could not find any proper. Sorry. Long ago a couple of original researches were moved from Wikipedia to Wikiversity instead of deletion. Wikeversity allows original research and even has a category of pages moved from Wikipedia. Why it is not practiced longer and wider? Some original researches are well-written and well-sourced. Is not better moving such articles to Wikiversity instead of deleting?-- Maxaxa ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Third relists. – Joe ( talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Deletion should not be used for archiving a page.
Are there any objections to me removing this section? The two processes are sufficiently distinct that confusion between them seems unlikely, so I'm not sure what purpose this serves. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
There are millions of articles, of which a large chunk have problems, and a good number could be contested for deletion. What mechanisms are there, if any, to prevent a prejudiced editor from selectively targeting articles about minorities and persecuted groups for deletion? Is there any policy or mechanism to ensure deletion policy is applied equally across all types of articles? Or is this a free for all-and its just too bad if articles about certain groups are just more likely to be contested? Jagmanst ( talk) 06:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion here got me wondering about this. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Our_Lady_of_Fatima_Senior_Secondary_School,_Aligarh Until February 2017, a high school simply had to verifiably exist to meet SNG. What should we do with regard to existing articles made well before new guidelines took effect that may not pass the new guidelines (GNG/NCORP)? I suspect many schools in small communities that do not have much coverage would cease to be eligible for inclusion if new guidelines were to be retroactively applied. Graywalls ( talk) 18:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Currently, ATD-I reads Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a
rule of thumb.
On
8 June 2023
Joe Roe altered this to Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue
, in a manner similar to an earlier but less elegant edit I made.
I think this is a reasonable and uncontroversial edit; per
WP:NOTBURO it is consensus that is important, not the location that the consensus takes place at, and it aligns with practice as demonstrated at a
recent VPR discussion. However,
BeanieFan11 today reverted that change, saying rvt billedmammal's change to policy without discussion
and if thats true, than surely you'll achieve consensus when you bring it up for discussion - but for now, this is a somewhat major change to a policy that has not been discussed - it needs to be discussed to be added
.
BeanieFan11, can you explain what objections you have to the change? BilledMammal ( talk) 15:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Objecting solely on the grounds that we need an RfC to change policy is not aligned with practice or policy.– Exactly:
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.And likewise, your view of "I-can-make-any-change-to-policy-I-want-and-if-someone-reverts-it-then-my-opinion-trumps-theirs" (not just here but at other pages such as WP:CANVASSING as well) is also not based in policy. I simply disagree that you can make major changes to policy to support a series of controversial RFCs that you're proposing. That's my objection. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Since discussion seems to have died out, does anyone have any non-procedural objections to this change? In other words, does any editor have a reason why venues like the Village Pump should not be permitted to come to a consensus that an article or group of articles should be draftified? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
if an RfC was held, how would you !vote and what justification would you present for your vote?BilledMammal ( talk) 10:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
without anyone actually presenting an argument against the changeI and two other editors have presented a mix of procedural and non-procedural arguments against the change (either entirely or as specifically worded). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as the village pump? It keeps the wording flexible to comply with WP:NOTBURO, for there may be venues that are suitable that we can't think of here, while establishing that there are limitations on what venues are suitable. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
no one has presented an actual argument against the change.is simply false, please stop repeating it. Whether you agree with the reasons presented or not they have been presented. If you want to see the change enacted you need to actually get consensus for it, rather than complain that you shouldn't need to get it. It's clear you don't think it should be controversial, that's fine, but it is controversial so you need to deal with that. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as the village pump? BilledMammal ( talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I often see articles about obviously notable topics (such as this one) that were deleted because they weren't well-written. But deletion is not cleanup; should articles about notable topics be deleted for that reason alone? Jarble ( talk) 21:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over i.e. create them de novo. Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content.(wikilinks not maintained) That says absolutely nothing about "it currently sucks SO BAD the encyclopedia would be better off with no article."One point of belief unsupported by evidence is that TNT'ing an article will prompt someone else to create a better article. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever tried to substantiate this argument, and since modern deletion tools tend to remove links to deleted articles--if it was ever true at any point, it's almost certainly not true now. Jclemens ( talk) 04:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly whom is dissuaded from what?the what part of that question is "totally-failing articles", which I would take to mean "articles that need to be completely rewritten" but based on comments in other discussions some other editors may define as being "a short stub". As for the whom part, I would guess that is people who currently write articles that meat the first definition. I arrived here in December 2004, we've been deleting sub-standard articles since at least then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Number 1 albums from the 1960s (UK) is from January 2005) and these articles are still being written in 2023, even more so when you look at what is submitted to draftspace, so there will need to be some pretty compelling evidence presented to convince me this deterrent effect is real. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia:HUFF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Wikipedia:HUFF until a consensus is reached. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia:Huff policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Wikipedia:Huff policy until a consensus is reached. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 23:49, 20 November 2023 (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 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
On a current AfD, there is a non-standard warning template, using {{ warning}} with custom text: "Comments not relating to the merits of this specific article (e.g. "keeping this makes Wikipedia look bad", "deleting this makes Wikipedia look bad", "Wikipedia is in the pocket of the Democrats", "Wikipedia is in the pocket of the Republicans") may be moved to the talkpage by any uninvolved user."
This does not cite any policy or guideline and seems to be a significant departure from WP:DEL, i.e. deputizing random users to simply remove !votes for being based on WP:ATA (which is not even a policy, but an essay. What is the meaning of this? Has WP:DEL been changed? jp× g 11:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
As I am Ethel-Michele de Villiers I request you to remove all information about me - all content was placed without my personal consent at any time. In addition I forbid you or anyone else to enter any information in Wiki regarding my person/cv/ at any time now or in the future. Thank you for your understanding! Ethel-Michele de Villiers 46.5.109.111 ( talk) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Mention of de Villiers by name in Bovine Meat and Milk Factors has been removed, as there is no need to name researchers in the text if the references name the journal article authors. David notMD ( talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I write in the wrong place but could not find any proper. Sorry. Long ago a couple of original researches were moved from Wikipedia to Wikiversity instead of deletion. Wikeversity allows original research and even has a category of pages moved from Wikipedia. Why it is not practiced longer and wider? Some original researches are well-written and well-sourced. Is not better moving such articles to Wikiversity instead of deleting?-- Maxaxa ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Third relists. – Joe ( talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Deletion should not be used for archiving a page.
Are there any objections to me removing this section? The two processes are sufficiently distinct that confusion between them seems unlikely, so I'm not sure what purpose this serves. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
There are millions of articles, of which a large chunk have problems, and a good number could be contested for deletion. What mechanisms are there, if any, to prevent a prejudiced editor from selectively targeting articles about minorities and persecuted groups for deletion? Is there any policy or mechanism to ensure deletion policy is applied equally across all types of articles? Or is this a free for all-and its just too bad if articles about certain groups are just more likely to be contested? Jagmanst ( talk) 06:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion here got me wondering about this. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Our_Lady_of_Fatima_Senior_Secondary_School,_Aligarh Until February 2017, a high school simply had to verifiably exist to meet SNG. What should we do with regard to existing articles made well before new guidelines took effect that may not pass the new guidelines (GNG/NCORP)? I suspect many schools in small communities that do not have much coverage would cease to be eligible for inclusion if new guidelines were to be retroactively applied. Graywalls ( talk) 18:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Currently, ATD-I reads Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a
rule of thumb.
On
8 June 2023
Joe Roe altered this to Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue
, in a manner similar to an earlier but less elegant edit I made.
I think this is a reasonable and uncontroversial edit; per
WP:NOTBURO it is consensus that is important, not the location that the consensus takes place at, and it aligns with practice as demonstrated at a
recent VPR discussion. However,
BeanieFan11 today reverted that change, saying rvt billedmammal's change to policy without discussion
and if thats true, than surely you'll achieve consensus when you bring it up for discussion - but for now, this is a somewhat major change to a policy that has not been discussed - it needs to be discussed to be added
.
BeanieFan11, can you explain what objections you have to the change? BilledMammal ( talk) 15:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Objecting solely on the grounds that we need an RfC to change policy is not aligned with practice or policy.– Exactly:
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.And likewise, your view of "I-can-make-any-change-to-policy-I-want-and-if-someone-reverts-it-then-my-opinion-trumps-theirs" (not just here but at other pages such as WP:CANVASSING as well) is also not based in policy. I simply disagree that you can make major changes to policy to support a series of controversial RFCs that you're proposing. That's my objection. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Since discussion seems to have died out, does anyone have any non-procedural objections to this change? In other words, does any editor have a reason why venues like the Village Pump should not be permitted to come to a consensus that an article or group of articles should be draftified? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
if an RfC was held, how would you !vote and what justification would you present for your vote?BilledMammal ( talk) 10:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
without anyone actually presenting an argument against the changeI and two other editors have presented a mix of procedural and non-procedural arguments against the change (either entirely or as specifically worded). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as the village pump? It keeps the wording flexible to comply with WP:NOTBURO, for there may be venues that are suitable that we can't think of here, while establishing that there are limitations on what venues are suitable. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
no one has presented an actual argument against the change.is simply false, please stop repeating it. Whether you agree with the reasons presented or not they have been presented. If you want to see the change enacted you need to actually get consensus for it, rather than complain that you shouldn't need to get it. It's clear you don't think it should be controversial, that's fine, but it is controversial so you need to deal with that. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as the village pump? BilledMammal ( talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I often see articles about obviously notable topics (such as this one) that were deleted because they weren't well-written. But deletion is not cleanup; should articles about notable topics be deleted for that reason alone? Jarble ( talk) 21:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over i.e. create them de novo. Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content.(wikilinks not maintained) That says absolutely nothing about "it currently sucks SO BAD the encyclopedia would be better off with no article."One point of belief unsupported by evidence is that TNT'ing an article will prompt someone else to create a better article. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever tried to substantiate this argument, and since modern deletion tools tend to remove links to deleted articles--if it was ever true at any point, it's almost certainly not true now. Jclemens ( talk) 04:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly whom is dissuaded from what?the what part of that question is "totally-failing articles", which I would take to mean "articles that need to be completely rewritten" but based on comments in other discussions some other editors may define as being "a short stub". As for the whom part, I would guess that is people who currently write articles that meat the first definition. I arrived here in December 2004, we've been deleting sub-standard articles since at least then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Number 1 albums from the 1960s (UK) is from January 2005) and these articles are still being written in 2023, even more so when you look at what is submitted to draftspace, so there will need to be some pretty compelling evidence presented to convince me this deterrent effect is real. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia:HUFF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Wikipedia:HUFF until a consensus is reached. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia:Huff policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Wikipedia:Huff policy until a consensus is reached. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 23:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)