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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
As you (SHOULD!) know, deleting an article costs additional time and resources. Typically at least as much as the original article cost.
So if you've been going around deleting stuff just to save time and effort, you're wrong, stop deleting right now. :-P
Anyway, a recent deletion debate turned up that some people aren't aware of the costs and manpower required to deal with (re)nominations, so I added a short phrase about that, without judging either way.
Kim Bruning 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I was building a site on Edward Capehart O'Kelley, the man who killed Robert Ford in 1892, with assistance from his descendants. It was given a "delete warning," within seconds of my first "save," so I gave my reasons, as asked, to not delete it, as I was still building it. Within a very short time some power hungry ass went ahead and deleted it anyway! Wikipedia has given me nothing but grief since I started! You will always have destroyers, and as long as they are given the authority to do so, they will. I am really regreting coming here in the first place. Soapy 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There was recently a problem with an editor who seemed to be on a mission to delete articles. It is much easier to delete than to create. Once again, I suggest a 2 month delay on merges and 6 months on deletions.— Who123 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an endemic problem with wikipedia editors in general. It is hard to put together good pages and respond to criticisms sometimes. I have been watching numerous pages get deleted, often with lots of hard work from contributors deleted quickly with junk statements. For example, how can something be a neologism of nothing? If article writers should be expected to provide reasoning and sources then there should be more accountability on deleters, especially where there is evidence of good faith in the article, with the writer, and in the discussion regarding edits. Articles with plenty of references and defenders get deleted too, so the deletion process has become a kind of ultimate weapon for crusaders against which there is no defence. -- M0llusk 01:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Mike 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion has always been used as a tool to get rid of clearly bad, clearly unencyclopaedic articles. I think it can also be used as a tool to encourage higher standards, by introducing some criteria for deletion that (hopefully) would seldom be used in practice. Much thought has led to me to suggest the following as criteria for deletion:
In practice, it really ought to be the case that these deletion criteria would not be used very much. A tag on an article saying "This will be deleted in six months unless sources are cited" would surely give ample time for that to be done, and ample encouragement as well. For new articles, probably the most important thing is that they're referenced, as it's so difficult for anyone else to cite sources later to back up what the original author wrote. Poor prose can be corrected easily even if you don't know anything about the topic, neutrality issues likewise, but referencing is crucial enough that we should much more strictly enforce its universal application. Verifiability is, after all, one of the three most basic policies of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There was recently a problem with an editor who seemed to be on a mission to delete articles. It is much easier to delete than to create. Once again, I suggest a 2 month delay on merges and 6 months on deletions after the merge and delete tags are placed.— Who123 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see some more discussion on this change, it's a bit big. - brenneman {L} 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to edit this page to reflect the change in policy on {{prod|reason}} changing to {{substr:prod|reason}} but I didn't understand what the tlp tag meant in the edit page. Could someone make the change and explain what it means? Thanks! JamieJones talk 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
To make {{ prod}}:
{{tl|prod}}
which essentially is the same as using
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Prod|prod]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>
Freakofnurture ( talk · contribs) just made an undiscussed, unilateral change to the Deletion policy discussion time for Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, writing "seven days (in practice, more like two)". There have been numerous complaints and Deletion reviews over Freak's rapid and unwarranted closures at RfD.
Many of us, with other responsibilities in life, only check our XfD pages once or twice per week. For special cases, with clearly defined requirements, there is Speedy deletion.
I oppose turning all RfDs into speedy deletions. The official policy is seven days, and should remain seven days, to give editors time to participate.
Then again, the vast majority of RFDs are obvious no-brainers. As long as you have an intelligent admin working on them (rather than a mindless vote-counting drone), they can be closed significantly faster than seven days. Seven days to deal with a redirect is ... very long. Unlike deleting an article, there really isn't anything to be lost by an RFD closure. It's about fixing what stuff points to and if it shouldn't be pointing to anything it gets deleted. It's trivial, basically. Seven days seems unwarranted. -- Cyde↔Weys 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion here seems to be focusing on quick closings as "deletes". There are also many that are closed quickly as "keeps". In fact, part of Freak's edits that were reverted included the statement: "Additionally, a nominated redirect may be edited (by any user) to create a new article or disambiguation page, at which point the corresponding RFD nomination is typically closed as null, void, meaningless, and no longer applicable." I'd hate to see bureaucracy get in the way of clear cut decisions that benefit our readers. When it's obvious that a redirect should be changed, it should be closed quickly so that readers get the content and not a dead end page. -- JLaTondre 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The original text prior to Freak's edit was "about a week" [1]. When Simpson changed that, he made it "seven days" [2]. I've restored the original text. I would note that wording is consistent with categories and images. If we're going to argue over the duration, we should keep the original definition and not either sides particular view. It seems to me that the original ambiguity recognizes that it's not a hard and fast rule, but that there are times when the decision is clear cut. -- JLaTondre 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to make a complaint about people that are way too fast to use the Delete Template. I was just putting up James Madison DeWolf, and someone put up a Delete template LITERALLY within a minute! I didn't even have time to access the page a second time! And this is not unique- I've seen several deletes posted in just the time it took me to go to the restroom and come back. Whatever you think of the particular articles, this is way too speedy. There should be a minimum length of time to fairly give the poster a chance to eat, go to the restroom, access a source or whatever before some Net Nanny freaks out. CFLeon 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. Recently, there was a problem with an editor who appeared to be on a mission to destroy articles though merging and deletion. Not every editor checks articles that they are interested in frequently. At that time I would only check those articles once a month or so. I would like to suggest that a policy be adopted that a merge template must be up for 2 months or so before the merge is done. I would like to see something similar with perhaps 4-6 months notice on article deletion. Is this the best place to discuss this?— Who123 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the procedures for deletion should be:
My personal opinion is that unless an article meets a criteria for speedy deletion or is posted by a seasoned author, then authors objecting to the deletion should be able to get the deletion notice removed and have it replaced with a time limited "Request for rewrite".
In addition the request to rewrite (and deletion notices) should go to a help page which explains:
Now if someone wants to reply "all they have to do is just look in" .... I have a simple reply, I never found it and if I can't find it why should any other newcomer? -- Mike 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
We either need to change policy to reflect practice (but only with consensus) or stop closing RfDs early. I've seen at least two admins complain that RfDs that should be obvious to everyone are coming back through DRVs. Rather than prevent it from happening by allowing all RfDs to conform to policy by allowing the discussions to remain open for the full duration, what usually happens is the DRV itself is closed within a day. I've woken up to see a new RfD open and close before I can comment, and I edit quite often. Now, we have WP:RFD#King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways which came back from DRV (and rightly so; five deletes and one "strong keep" by the redirect's creator) after being kept and closed before the seven days. This DRV RfD was closed the next day it was opened. Might I point out that these are to stay open for seven days unless they qualify for early closure per WP:DEL#Early closure:
Surely an RfD with several delete nominations should not be kept immediately after one person argues for keeping it, and after it comes back as a DRV there is definately substantial debate on the redirect. This is getting frustrating. Have the admins who close RfDs early against policy never read the relevent policy, or do they just have no respect at all for it? I'd really like to hear a good explaination why there are multiple pages of policy being violated on a nearly-hourly basis through RfDs. BigNate37 T· C 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What does it matter if an RFD is closed early? Are you denying that the majority of early decisions made on RFD are the right ones, or are you upset because you didn't get a chance to have your say before it was over? If there is an RFD outcome you disagree with remember WP:NBD and contact the closing administrator on their talk page. I've been working on RFD very actively recently, and yes, a lot of them are being closed early, but then again, a lot of them have really obvious resolutions. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There were 8 keeps and 1 delete this time and that's not counting all the original overturns at the first DRV. Even if you add the deletes votes from last time, I think closing this was a ligitimate application of WP:SNOW as it's clear there is not going to be a consensus for deletion. However, the {{ rfd}} tag was not removed from the article so it wasn't a properly executed close either. I think, given the circumstances, this one should be re-opened and allowed to run its course. As such, I've reverted the closure. -- JLaTondre 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Pehaps this should be listed on a more-traversed page where other editors will have the opportunity to join the discussion? I don't know how to go about this, but if someone does and thinks that it is worth doing, feel free. BigNate37 T· C 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I should append that last statement--it's not an attack on Tony (although I *do* strongly disagree with many of his viewpoints on process). Any "system" of this size, complexity, and magnitude depends on process. From the government to corporate settings, an established procedure and workflow is critical to ensuring that everything remains on the up and up, and that nothing can fall through the cracks. At worst, if *EVERYTHING* were done by the book, is that you'd get a backlog on some relative queues of work, but that again is a self correcting thing. As they back up, more people could become admins to help in turn keep up. Bypassing or "pissing" on the process and systems that 99.9% of the users of Wikipedia rely and expect for expediency is a HORRENDOUS idea and attitude for anyone to have. It leads to pointless fights, hurt feelings, and endless ill will.
In the case of erring on the side of Keep for deletions, this is not a bad thing--if you AfD and in 48 hours you have 90 people saying Keep and one lone voice saying to nuke the article, you might as well keep. However, if it's a possible no concensus either way, or a possible delete, it MUST run out the duration. What does it honestly hurt to do that? Keeping it "by the books" ensures that no one can complain: it was done by the books. And no, Tony, I can see you gearing up to type it--this does not give anything to the trolls. It disarms them, if they are trolls, since they can't cry foul. If the community BY IT'S OWN RULES says "You're out", you're out, and that's that.
I suspect that some people may be in favor of bypassing process--not naming names--or general procedure to see their own personal ideals, ends, desires, and vision of the project wrought or brought about. However, this is a Very Bad Idea. No one man or woman's vision is relevant in the end beside Jimbo's; everything else should be consensus. If all the people discussing this say that concensus is you "do it by the book", well, then, anyone who bypasses that should be set to be held accountable. There is oversight for perceived bad deletions, as there should be, but there should also be a firm, committed, and iron clad committment to err in the side of keeping at all times. At worst, you'll have to wait another day or four, and at best, if you have a vested personal interest to see an article 'gone', it'll be gone anyway by the book, with no wiggle room for complaint, if you do it RIGHT.
I honestly recommend that it be set as a policy that WP:SNOW be judged 100% inappropriate for anything as an AfD, or No Concensus. It should only be even considered or allowable as practice when the final closing will be clear keep, never othewise. Deleting content from Wikipedia is a very serious business, and if something is up for AfD rather than Speedy or Prod, there's a good reason for it be up for discussion in all likelihood. It's foolhardy and irresponsible to torch content that can be worthwhile or possibly rehabilitated to "piss on the process". As an addendum, I propose that with this adjustment to policy it be ALSO policy that any inappropriate and premature closings as a matter of policy by reversed and reopened to run correctly. There's no good reason to just torch something--I mean, literally, in the fifth day and 23rd hour someone could make a compelling argument of such clarity and insight that it could sway the closing admin one way or the other--it would be wrong and unfair for both inclusionists and deletionists to simply deny them that right and oppurtunity in the spirit of "Faster Pussycat, Delete Delete." 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I added Proposed Deletion to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed table, as it only listed AfD as a method of deleting articles. Some of the long time policy articles still haven't been updated to include PROD deletion, this was one of them. -- Xyzzyplugh 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
is there a page specifically devoted to notability requirements for video game characters, old TV series, etc.? wikipedia seems totally stuffed with such crud. e.g. i was surprised to see a prominent mention on Gypsy (Fleetwood Mac song) to the "fact" that this song appeared in a single episode of "Knight Rider" -- and even more surprised to see the *endless* reams of drivel written about that show (which ran only between 1982-1986, for god's sake!). do we really need an article about FLAG, the organization that Michael Knight worked for; Garthe Knight, his occasional doppelganger; KARR, his car's nemesis; the plot of every single episode List of Knight Rider episodes, etc. etc.? similarly, when i tried typing "zero" with the expectation of a disambig page with a clear link to the japanese fighter plane, i instead got an endless list of characters from video games and tv series i've mostly never even heard of. (the link to the plane was about the 50th entry before i moved it up.) i'd suggest a page specifically about fictional shows, games, etc. that tries to get people to think twice or three times before posting. (one possible criterion: imagine someone reading wikipedia 20 years from now, do you think anyone would possibly care about this? if not, probably doesn't belong.) Benwing 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We are having a bit of a brawl over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. Many feel this entire nomination is bad faith, and the original nominator has even pulled out. How do I go about getting the nomination strikken, as this entire AfD is wrong. After the nomination went up, people started adding new articles to the list which gives no concise way for people to vote, as new things are added. Most, if not all, are major characters inn the Warcraft universe, and as such work in accordance with WP:FICT. The admin who re-opened the nomination stated that it was heading for "deletion" which I don't see. And nominating that many articles is plain wrong, seeing as there is no way to keep track of how the vote is being counted and which of the articles should be exempt from the vote. I don't think editors who vote "delete", actually read all the articles nominated. And as such have no idea which of the articles are major or not, or if they should be keept or not. This entire vote is messy, and should anyone want to nominate characters for deletion, they should do so individual. Havok (T/ C/ c) 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This keeps coming up - all over Wikipedia are people whose only noteworthy aspect is that they were a contestant on Survivor or some other show. I understand if you won, and even if you are a runner-up, but that being the only noteworthy thing in your history, well, I don't see it. But I'm open to being swayed. Is this an old discussion? What is the consensus? -- DavidShankBone 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was asked to opine on this. It is often true that conversations about these things make more sense if every instance of the word "notability" is changed to "verifiability". I suggest that the sensible thing to do is to only create child articles from the television show article for those contestants for whom there is enough WP:V material from reliable sources. Jkelly 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious Jeff, who else do you consider "very, very notable?" Unlike American Idol, Survivor contestants are chosen for an innate ability in all of us - the ability to "survive" under certain circumstances. What, exactly, makes them "very, very notable" that, say, you or I do not have? Their desire to hope their instinct is good enough to win $1,000,000? I agree the top two challenges merit a page, but beyond that they are discharged game show contestants. Can you find anything in the WP:BIO section that makes them "very, very notable?" I can be swayed, but as it stands now, I don't see what they have accomplished or achieved if all they have done is compete in a game of survival for a lot of money; a television game that has a heavy production quotient. -- DavidShankBone 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
Curiosity question: If I have a good enough reason to re-create a deleted *and* protected page, can I do it myself? Can you grant temporary adminship/unprotecting to allow for such a thing, if you agree that the reasons I give are good enough?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.199.173 ( talk • contribs)
I've just run across a page that was Speedy Deleted by a user who is only identified by an IP address. I would think that this wouldn't be possible; if users without accounts can't create pages, how do they delete them? I don't disagree with the deletion; I just wonder about the methodology.— Chidom talk 16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the log; that identified the administrator. Having tagged a few articles with {{ db}} myself, I know anyone can tag it; I also knew that only an administrator could act on the tag/actually delete the article. What was confusing me was that the note at the top of the page is "The result was Speedily Deleted as a non-notable biography. 82.33.48.5 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)"; that didn't identify the Administrator and gave the impression that someone signed in under an IP address had done the actual deletion. Apparently they deleted the article while signed in as an administrator and added the comment while they were logged out.— Chidom talk 01:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
While reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viceroy seeds, it occurred to me that for Wikipedia to publish this in my country is illegal. Allowing the information to be downloaded is publication according to the law of both the US and Australia. In future we ought to be able to do something about this. If someone were to publish methods of committing suicide or images of child pornography on wikipedia, that too would be illegal. - Richardcavell 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering my own experience with deletionists and my experience as a mergist, I offer the ManyBytesAgo wiki as a substitute home. I've already petitioned meta for an Interwiki address, and I've implemented existing Interwiki addressing on the site. Cwolfsheep 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as thousands of articles, categories, photos, lists etc are being deleted or renamed, it is becoming increasingly rare to find editors (who make the nominations to delete or rename) follow the normal courtesy of contacting the original creators of articles and categories, and often articles and categories are deleted or renamed without the input of their creators or from those editors who know more about the subject and contents of the articles and categories. I speak from experience because these acts breed uncalled for enmity between otherwise well-meaning editors. Somehow, a way has to be found to stress and publicize the Wikipedia guidelines which is clearly stated below in a few places:
All suggestions as to how to improve the present situation should be welcomed and popularized. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IZAK 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Deletion review as of 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy as of 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion as of 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
end moved comments
I don't remember ever informing anyone that I have deleted, proded or AFD'd an article they created. It seems to me to go against the spirit of WP:OWN. I might in circumstances where I was nominating for deletion an article which I was sure had been created by an inexperienced but well-intentioned user and to which there were no other significant contributors, but those cases are few and far between for all sorts of reasons. The Land 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is very common with vanity-style articles that don't meet A7 criteria. Why clog AfD for really obvious vanity? For this, I'm very against forced informing of the creator of an article for proposed deletion, AfDs already crazy workload would go up like mad. Kevin_b_er 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I usually do the following:
The only people who nominators should be obligated to contact are the article's owner(s). Everyone else is a courtesy. BigNate37 (T) 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
IHNMTS except that any serious and good contributor puts the pages they care about on their Watchlist and checks it regularly. I guess I appreciate a notice, but frankly, the boilerplates get tedious when, for example, someone puts up a handful of your pictures. Assuming submitters are good about adding indicative summaries in these cases, my WL should do just as good a job as a bunch of impersonal templates on my talk page. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious if articles in the Project Namespace are susceptible for deletion. The reason I ask is regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Calendar. I just don't see the purpose of having a birthday calendar on Wikipedia. Figured I'd ask around for precedent before I do something not permitted. JPG-GR 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that an article should exist for awhile before being nominated for deletion. People need to have some time to add to an article before being nominated for deletion. There should be something in the policy about checking the date of creation. -- Gbleem 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
One thing that bothers me about the deletion process which I have seen with respect to many pages is the relatively easy deletion of pages that have been constructed with much work. It seems like most of the pages that are deserving of deletion are the opposite, for example company marketing information usually comes in one quick post from a single source and has no references or discussion, but then wikipedians must coordinate to get the stuff deleted. When pages that multiple contributors have worked hard on are removed after only a quick discussion and some clicks it seems unjust and like some more--more notifications, more time, something--should be required.
Those who are most interested in deleting understand the five day limit works in their favor and set up deletions at late weekend or early weekday times to avoid real review of their actions. Causual deleters are currently running amok on wikipedia. It does not seem right that hard work should be easy to delete, especially without interacting with contributors. There should be some kind of handshake process where by the creators are notified and have a real opportunity to respond. The case of pages that have been labored over is different from the majority of spam that needs to be deleted. -- M0llusk 01:51, 17 September 2006 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
As you (SHOULD!) know, deleting an article costs additional time and resources. Typically at least as much as the original article cost.
So if you've been going around deleting stuff just to save time and effort, you're wrong, stop deleting right now. :-P
Anyway, a recent deletion debate turned up that some people aren't aware of the costs and manpower required to deal with (re)nominations, so I added a short phrase about that, without judging either way.
Kim Bruning 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I was building a site on Edward Capehart O'Kelley, the man who killed Robert Ford in 1892, with assistance from his descendants. It was given a "delete warning," within seconds of my first "save," so I gave my reasons, as asked, to not delete it, as I was still building it. Within a very short time some power hungry ass went ahead and deleted it anyway! Wikipedia has given me nothing but grief since I started! You will always have destroyers, and as long as they are given the authority to do so, they will. I am really regreting coming here in the first place. Soapy 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There was recently a problem with an editor who seemed to be on a mission to delete articles. It is much easier to delete than to create. Once again, I suggest a 2 month delay on merges and 6 months on deletions.— Who123 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an endemic problem with wikipedia editors in general. It is hard to put together good pages and respond to criticisms sometimes. I have been watching numerous pages get deleted, often with lots of hard work from contributors deleted quickly with junk statements. For example, how can something be a neologism of nothing? If article writers should be expected to provide reasoning and sources then there should be more accountability on deleters, especially where there is evidence of good faith in the article, with the writer, and in the discussion regarding edits. Articles with plenty of references and defenders get deleted too, so the deletion process has become a kind of ultimate weapon for crusaders against which there is no defence. -- M0llusk 01:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Mike 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion has always been used as a tool to get rid of clearly bad, clearly unencyclopaedic articles. I think it can also be used as a tool to encourage higher standards, by introducing some criteria for deletion that (hopefully) would seldom be used in practice. Much thought has led to me to suggest the following as criteria for deletion:
In practice, it really ought to be the case that these deletion criteria would not be used very much. A tag on an article saying "This will be deleted in six months unless sources are cited" would surely give ample time for that to be done, and ample encouragement as well. For new articles, probably the most important thing is that they're referenced, as it's so difficult for anyone else to cite sources later to back up what the original author wrote. Poor prose can be corrected easily even if you don't know anything about the topic, neutrality issues likewise, but referencing is crucial enough that we should much more strictly enforce its universal application. Verifiability is, after all, one of the three most basic policies of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There was recently a problem with an editor who seemed to be on a mission to delete articles. It is much easier to delete than to create. Once again, I suggest a 2 month delay on merges and 6 months on deletions after the merge and delete tags are placed.— Who123 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see some more discussion on this change, it's a bit big. - brenneman {L} 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to edit this page to reflect the change in policy on {{prod|reason}} changing to {{substr:prod|reason}} but I didn't understand what the tlp tag meant in the edit page. Could someone make the change and explain what it means? Thanks! JamieJones talk 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
To make {{ prod}}:
{{tl|prod}}
which essentially is the same as using
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Prod|prod]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>
Freakofnurture ( talk · contribs) just made an undiscussed, unilateral change to the Deletion policy discussion time for Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, writing "seven days (in practice, more like two)". There have been numerous complaints and Deletion reviews over Freak's rapid and unwarranted closures at RfD.
Many of us, with other responsibilities in life, only check our XfD pages once or twice per week. For special cases, with clearly defined requirements, there is Speedy deletion.
I oppose turning all RfDs into speedy deletions. The official policy is seven days, and should remain seven days, to give editors time to participate.
Then again, the vast majority of RFDs are obvious no-brainers. As long as you have an intelligent admin working on them (rather than a mindless vote-counting drone), they can be closed significantly faster than seven days. Seven days to deal with a redirect is ... very long. Unlike deleting an article, there really isn't anything to be lost by an RFD closure. It's about fixing what stuff points to and if it shouldn't be pointing to anything it gets deleted. It's trivial, basically. Seven days seems unwarranted. -- Cyde↔Weys 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion here seems to be focusing on quick closings as "deletes". There are also many that are closed quickly as "keeps". In fact, part of Freak's edits that were reverted included the statement: "Additionally, a nominated redirect may be edited (by any user) to create a new article or disambiguation page, at which point the corresponding RFD nomination is typically closed as null, void, meaningless, and no longer applicable." I'd hate to see bureaucracy get in the way of clear cut decisions that benefit our readers. When it's obvious that a redirect should be changed, it should be closed quickly so that readers get the content and not a dead end page. -- JLaTondre 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The original text prior to Freak's edit was "about a week" [1]. When Simpson changed that, he made it "seven days" [2]. I've restored the original text. I would note that wording is consistent with categories and images. If we're going to argue over the duration, we should keep the original definition and not either sides particular view. It seems to me that the original ambiguity recognizes that it's not a hard and fast rule, but that there are times when the decision is clear cut. -- JLaTondre 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to make a complaint about people that are way too fast to use the Delete Template. I was just putting up James Madison DeWolf, and someone put up a Delete template LITERALLY within a minute! I didn't even have time to access the page a second time! And this is not unique- I've seen several deletes posted in just the time it took me to go to the restroom and come back. Whatever you think of the particular articles, this is way too speedy. There should be a minimum length of time to fairly give the poster a chance to eat, go to the restroom, access a source or whatever before some Net Nanny freaks out. CFLeon 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. Recently, there was a problem with an editor who appeared to be on a mission to destroy articles though merging and deletion. Not every editor checks articles that they are interested in frequently. At that time I would only check those articles once a month or so. I would like to suggest that a policy be adopted that a merge template must be up for 2 months or so before the merge is done. I would like to see something similar with perhaps 4-6 months notice on article deletion. Is this the best place to discuss this?— Who123 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the procedures for deletion should be:
My personal opinion is that unless an article meets a criteria for speedy deletion or is posted by a seasoned author, then authors objecting to the deletion should be able to get the deletion notice removed and have it replaced with a time limited "Request for rewrite".
In addition the request to rewrite (and deletion notices) should go to a help page which explains:
Now if someone wants to reply "all they have to do is just look in" .... I have a simple reply, I never found it and if I can't find it why should any other newcomer? -- Mike 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
We either need to change policy to reflect practice (but only with consensus) or stop closing RfDs early. I've seen at least two admins complain that RfDs that should be obvious to everyone are coming back through DRVs. Rather than prevent it from happening by allowing all RfDs to conform to policy by allowing the discussions to remain open for the full duration, what usually happens is the DRV itself is closed within a day. I've woken up to see a new RfD open and close before I can comment, and I edit quite often. Now, we have WP:RFD#King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways which came back from DRV (and rightly so; five deletes and one "strong keep" by the redirect's creator) after being kept and closed before the seven days. This DRV RfD was closed the next day it was opened. Might I point out that these are to stay open for seven days unless they qualify for early closure per WP:DEL#Early closure:
Surely an RfD with several delete nominations should not be kept immediately after one person argues for keeping it, and after it comes back as a DRV there is definately substantial debate on the redirect. This is getting frustrating. Have the admins who close RfDs early against policy never read the relevent policy, or do they just have no respect at all for it? I'd really like to hear a good explaination why there are multiple pages of policy being violated on a nearly-hourly basis through RfDs. BigNate37 T· C 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What does it matter if an RFD is closed early? Are you denying that the majority of early decisions made on RFD are the right ones, or are you upset because you didn't get a chance to have your say before it was over? If there is an RFD outcome you disagree with remember WP:NBD and contact the closing administrator on their talk page. I've been working on RFD very actively recently, and yes, a lot of them are being closed early, but then again, a lot of them have really obvious resolutions. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There were 8 keeps and 1 delete this time and that's not counting all the original overturns at the first DRV. Even if you add the deletes votes from last time, I think closing this was a ligitimate application of WP:SNOW as it's clear there is not going to be a consensus for deletion. However, the {{ rfd}} tag was not removed from the article so it wasn't a properly executed close either. I think, given the circumstances, this one should be re-opened and allowed to run its course. As such, I've reverted the closure. -- JLaTondre 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Pehaps this should be listed on a more-traversed page where other editors will have the opportunity to join the discussion? I don't know how to go about this, but if someone does and thinks that it is worth doing, feel free. BigNate37 T· C 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I should append that last statement--it's not an attack on Tony (although I *do* strongly disagree with many of his viewpoints on process). Any "system" of this size, complexity, and magnitude depends on process. From the government to corporate settings, an established procedure and workflow is critical to ensuring that everything remains on the up and up, and that nothing can fall through the cracks. At worst, if *EVERYTHING* were done by the book, is that you'd get a backlog on some relative queues of work, but that again is a self correcting thing. As they back up, more people could become admins to help in turn keep up. Bypassing or "pissing" on the process and systems that 99.9% of the users of Wikipedia rely and expect for expediency is a HORRENDOUS idea and attitude for anyone to have. It leads to pointless fights, hurt feelings, and endless ill will.
In the case of erring on the side of Keep for deletions, this is not a bad thing--if you AfD and in 48 hours you have 90 people saying Keep and one lone voice saying to nuke the article, you might as well keep. However, if it's a possible no concensus either way, or a possible delete, it MUST run out the duration. What does it honestly hurt to do that? Keeping it "by the books" ensures that no one can complain: it was done by the books. And no, Tony, I can see you gearing up to type it--this does not give anything to the trolls. It disarms them, if they are trolls, since they can't cry foul. If the community BY IT'S OWN RULES says "You're out", you're out, and that's that.
I suspect that some people may be in favor of bypassing process--not naming names--or general procedure to see their own personal ideals, ends, desires, and vision of the project wrought or brought about. However, this is a Very Bad Idea. No one man or woman's vision is relevant in the end beside Jimbo's; everything else should be consensus. If all the people discussing this say that concensus is you "do it by the book", well, then, anyone who bypasses that should be set to be held accountable. There is oversight for perceived bad deletions, as there should be, but there should also be a firm, committed, and iron clad committment to err in the side of keeping at all times. At worst, you'll have to wait another day or four, and at best, if you have a vested personal interest to see an article 'gone', it'll be gone anyway by the book, with no wiggle room for complaint, if you do it RIGHT.
I honestly recommend that it be set as a policy that WP:SNOW be judged 100% inappropriate for anything as an AfD, or No Concensus. It should only be even considered or allowable as practice when the final closing will be clear keep, never othewise. Deleting content from Wikipedia is a very serious business, and if something is up for AfD rather than Speedy or Prod, there's a good reason for it be up for discussion in all likelihood. It's foolhardy and irresponsible to torch content that can be worthwhile or possibly rehabilitated to "piss on the process". As an addendum, I propose that with this adjustment to policy it be ALSO policy that any inappropriate and premature closings as a matter of policy by reversed and reopened to run correctly. There's no good reason to just torch something--I mean, literally, in the fifth day and 23rd hour someone could make a compelling argument of such clarity and insight that it could sway the closing admin one way or the other--it would be wrong and unfair for both inclusionists and deletionists to simply deny them that right and oppurtunity in the spirit of "Faster Pussycat, Delete Delete." 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I added Proposed Deletion to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed table, as it only listed AfD as a method of deleting articles. Some of the long time policy articles still haven't been updated to include PROD deletion, this was one of them. -- Xyzzyplugh 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
is there a page specifically devoted to notability requirements for video game characters, old TV series, etc.? wikipedia seems totally stuffed with such crud. e.g. i was surprised to see a prominent mention on Gypsy (Fleetwood Mac song) to the "fact" that this song appeared in a single episode of "Knight Rider" -- and even more surprised to see the *endless* reams of drivel written about that show (which ran only between 1982-1986, for god's sake!). do we really need an article about FLAG, the organization that Michael Knight worked for; Garthe Knight, his occasional doppelganger; KARR, his car's nemesis; the plot of every single episode List of Knight Rider episodes, etc. etc.? similarly, when i tried typing "zero" with the expectation of a disambig page with a clear link to the japanese fighter plane, i instead got an endless list of characters from video games and tv series i've mostly never even heard of. (the link to the plane was about the 50th entry before i moved it up.) i'd suggest a page specifically about fictional shows, games, etc. that tries to get people to think twice or three times before posting. (one possible criterion: imagine someone reading wikipedia 20 years from now, do you think anyone would possibly care about this? if not, probably doesn't belong.) Benwing 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We are having a bit of a brawl over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. Many feel this entire nomination is bad faith, and the original nominator has even pulled out. How do I go about getting the nomination strikken, as this entire AfD is wrong. After the nomination went up, people started adding new articles to the list which gives no concise way for people to vote, as new things are added. Most, if not all, are major characters inn the Warcraft universe, and as such work in accordance with WP:FICT. The admin who re-opened the nomination stated that it was heading for "deletion" which I don't see. And nominating that many articles is plain wrong, seeing as there is no way to keep track of how the vote is being counted and which of the articles should be exempt from the vote. I don't think editors who vote "delete", actually read all the articles nominated. And as such have no idea which of the articles are major or not, or if they should be keept or not. This entire vote is messy, and should anyone want to nominate characters for deletion, they should do so individual. Havok (T/ C/ c) 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This keeps coming up - all over Wikipedia are people whose only noteworthy aspect is that they were a contestant on Survivor or some other show. I understand if you won, and even if you are a runner-up, but that being the only noteworthy thing in your history, well, I don't see it. But I'm open to being swayed. Is this an old discussion? What is the consensus? -- DavidShankBone 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was asked to opine on this. It is often true that conversations about these things make more sense if every instance of the word "notability" is changed to "verifiability". I suggest that the sensible thing to do is to only create child articles from the television show article for those contestants for whom there is enough WP:V material from reliable sources. Jkelly 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious Jeff, who else do you consider "very, very notable?" Unlike American Idol, Survivor contestants are chosen for an innate ability in all of us - the ability to "survive" under certain circumstances. What, exactly, makes them "very, very notable" that, say, you or I do not have? Their desire to hope their instinct is good enough to win $1,000,000? I agree the top two challenges merit a page, but beyond that they are discharged game show contestants. Can you find anything in the WP:BIO section that makes them "very, very notable?" I can be swayed, but as it stands now, I don't see what they have accomplished or achieved if all they have done is compete in a game of survival for a lot of money; a television game that has a heavy production quotient. -- DavidShankBone 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
Curiosity question: If I have a good enough reason to re-create a deleted *and* protected page, can I do it myself? Can you grant temporary adminship/unprotecting to allow for such a thing, if you agree that the reasons I give are good enough?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.199.173 ( talk • contribs)
I've just run across a page that was Speedy Deleted by a user who is only identified by an IP address. I would think that this wouldn't be possible; if users without accounts can't create pages, how do they delete them? I don't disagree with the deletion; I just wonder about the methodology.— Chidom talk 16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the log; that identified the administrator. Having tagged a few articles with {{ db}} myself, I know anyone can tag it; I also knew that only an administrator could act on the tag/actually delete the article. What was confusing me was that the note at the top of the page is "The result was Speedily Deleted as a non-notable biography. 82.33.48.5 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)"; that didn't identify the Administrator and gave the impression that someone signed in under an IP address had done the actual deletion. Apparently they deleted the article while signed in as an administrator and added the comment while they were logged out.— Chidom talk 01:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
While reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viceroy seeds, it occurred to me that for Wikipedia to publish this in my country is illegal. Allowing the information to be downloaded is publication according to the law of both the US and Australia. In future we ought to be able to do something about this. If someone were to publish methods of committing suicide or images of child pornography on wikipedia, that too would be illegal. - Richardcavell 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering my own experience with deletionists and my experience as a mergist, I offer the ManyBytesAgo wiki as a substitute home. I've already petitioned meta for an Interwiki address, and I've implemented existing Interwiki addressing on the site. Cwolfsheep 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as thousands of articles, categories, photos, lists etc are being deleted or renamed, it is becoming increasingly rare to find editors (who make the nominations to delete or rename) follow the normal courtesy of contacting the original creators of articles and categories, and often articles and categories are deleted or renamed without the input of their creators or from those editors who know more about the subject and contents of the articles and categories. I speak from experience because these acts breed uncalled for enmity between otherwise well-meaning editors. Somehow, a way has to be found to stress and publicize the Wikipedia guidelines which is clearly stated below in a few places:
All suggestions as to how to improve the present situation should be welcomed and popularized. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IZAK 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Deletion review as of 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy as of 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
comments moved in from Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion as of 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
end moved comments
I don't remember ever informing anyone that I have deleted, proded or AFD'd an article they created. It seems to me to go against the spirit of WP:OWN. I might in circumstances where I was nominating for deletion an article which I was sure had been created by an inexperienced but well-intentioned user and to which there were no other significant contributors, but those cases are few and far between for all sorts of reasons. The Land 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is very common with vanity-style articles that don't meet A7 criteria. Why clog AfD for really obvious vanity? For this, I'm very against forced informing of the creator of an article for proposed deletion, AfDs already crazy workload would go up like mad. Kevin_b_er 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I usually do the following:
The only people who nominators should be obligated to contact are the article's owner(s). Everyone else is a courtesy. BigNate37 (T) 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
IHNMTS except that any serious and good contributor puts the pages they care about on their Watchlist and checks it regularly. I guess I appreciate a notice, but frankly, the boilerplates get tedious when, for example, someone puts up a handful of your pictures. Assuming submitters are good about adding indicative summaries in these cases, my WL should do just as good a job as a bunch of impersonal templates on my talk page. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious if articles in the Project Namespace are susceptible for deletion. The reason I ask is regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Calendar. I just don't see the purpose of having a birthday calendar on Wikipedia. Figured I'd ask around for precedent before I do something not permitted. JPG-GR 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that an article should exist for awhile before being nominated for deletion. People need to have some time to add to an article before being nominated for deletion. There should be something in the policy about checking the date of creation. -- Gbleem 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
One thing that bothers me about the deletion process which I have seen with respect to many pages is the relatively easy deletion of pages that have been constructed with much work. It seems like most of the pages that are deserving of deletion are the opposite, for example company marketing information usually comes in one quick post from a single source and has no references or discussion, but then wikipedians must coordinate to get the stuff deleted. When pages that multiple contributors have worked hard on are removed after only a quick discussion and some clicks it seems unjust and like some more--more notifications, more time, something--should be required.
Those who are most interested in deleting understand the five day limit works in their favor and set up deletions at late weekend or early weekday times to avoid real review of their actions. Causual deleters are currently running amok on wikipedia. It does not seem right that hard work should be easy to delete, especially without interacting with contributors. There should be some kind of handshake process where by the creators are notified and have a real opportunity to respond. The case of pages that have been labored over is different from the majority of spam that needs to be deleted. -- M0llusk 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)