Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Editing restrictions

  • Merging, redirecting, and transwiking content during the VFD process are valid processes of handling an article traditionally. There are a few nominations that get nominated for merging, redirecting, and transwiking when someone can already do that without the VFD process. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • As the guide explains, merger causes GFDL problems if the decision is actually to delete. Essentially the person doing the delete has to remove all of the merged content from other articles in order to remain GFDL compliant. (I cannot, off-hand, remember where it was that I found, when looking at the various different places that have been consolidated here, one person mentioning a case where xe had to turn an overwhelming delete into a keep because one editor had merged the content during discussion.) Furthermore: Redirecting has not traditionally been valid during discussion. Indeed, traditionally in the overwhelming majority of cases where I've encountered this happening redirects are reverted "in order to keep the VFD notice", just as blankings are. As the guide explains, and as has been explained before in VFD discussions when this has come up, this is why "redirect" is a vote. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think that was me in the merger example. I overturned an "overwhelming delete" to a "redirect" because so many people in the discussion explicitly endorsed the merger but did so with logically inconsistent votes. If I remember correctly, they said "merge content but delete the article" and "good merge, now delete this". I'll try to find the discussion and link it in. If that is the one you were thinking of, I certainly did not consider the merger to be vandalism. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • There are some cases where RickK redirected the article while it has been up on VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Redirection isn't merger, though. It's the GFDL problems inherent in the copying text from one article to another that is the part of article merger that precedes the final redirection that are the difficulties. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] Caution not to "helpfully" refactor as a list of votes

From User talk:CesarB:
  • Good afternoon. I saw the addition you made to the Guide about refactoring. You specifically mentioned tables in addition to refactoring of the list. Is it your thought that we should preclude, for example, the recap table at the top of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/La Shawn Barber? Even though I added that one, I'll admit that I've had second thoughts about whether or not those recap tables are really helpful. Their big advantage in my mind has been to give the "ambiguous" voters a chance to come in and clarify their position. On short discussion threads, it's not usually so important but on the really contentious issues, it seemed helpful. The downside is that the recap table tends to bias people toward vote-counting and away from discussion. I felt it was acceptable because the really long and argumentative discussion threads have almost always already degenerated into namecalling by the time they're that long so not much would be lost. Should I stop? Rossami (talk) 22:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that the recap tables are better reserved for being aide-memoires to closers, which they can construct themselves in accordance with the "show your working" maxim, and discouraged from being a standard feature whilst the discussion is in progress. They encourage further development of the concept and we then end up with things like Template:vfd votes, which are a terrible idea. Uncle G 23:36, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
      I'd prefer not to have recap tables used. Pulling the votes away from their comments seems to diminish the idea of discussion, rather than straight voting. It seems just as easy to make a list on paper or in a WP window as it is to use a recap table. To "show my work," I'd rather type a few sentences of explanation when closing, as Rossami does so well. Joyous 04:24, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most important thing to remember

  • Your ego is not on the line. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that sentence as an addition to the section? Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] The end of the discussion

deferred until the end of the discussion.

  • Who decides the end of discussion? When is the end of discussion? Tradition (not to vote on VFD/Old) versus policy (not to vote until an administrator has reviewed it and closed it)? -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well this article is written from a descriptive rather than a prescriptive viewpoint. And there are is a pointer to Wikipedia:Deletion process which I believe answers these questions, if perhaps not fully. (I think that it's up to an individual administrator to decide when the lag time has ended, on a case by case basis. It should be at least the published lag time, but there's no reason not to allow leeway for discussions that are clearly nearing consensus but aren't quite there yet.) Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

  • Articles' information may be merged with another article during VFD, but the article itself should remain the same. This follows the be bold policy, where one person can effect a VFD vote process by demonstrating how well an action is. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This is discussed in the preceding section. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] Closure exceptions

A debate may be closed if and only if an article has previously deleted by an administrator for speedy deletion due to the fact that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Should you see an article deleted due to these circumstances, follow these instructions:

Close the discussion by editing the top and bottom of the VfD discussion sub-page. (Together, these two edits will create a shaded box around the discussion thread confirming that it has been closed. See the example below.)

a. at the (very) top with {{subst:vfd top}} '''speedy deletion.''' ~~~~, above the section of the article. b. at the bottom with {{subst:vfd bottom}}.

  • Note {{subst:vt}} and {{subst:vb}} are shortcuts.

-- AllyUnion (talk) 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think that "if and only if" is true. Closure of obvious keeps by anyone has often been accepted, and encouraged, in the past. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
    • This is in the case of speedy deletion. Votes for deletion is not votes for undeletion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource, transwiki, etc

The most common transwiking should have its own section, including links to the templates for them. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

The article needs to be divided up further. A specific section should talk about sockpuppetry, new users, etc, so that it can be easily found. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I did at one point whilst drafting the original have a "new users" section. It was clunky, and ended up repeating too much of what logically belonged in various other sections. I instead settled on the current form, of emphatically drawing new users attention in the introduction to a couple of important things later on, as well as having the "most important things" section right at the top, because it flowed better. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] 3 restrictions

Doing any of these is automatically considered to be vandalism.

  • Nothing is automatic. Should be reworded as can be considered... Also, there may be logical reasons of moving the article. Additionally, it would be best to create a redirect after the move to the old VFD subpage. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm happy with "can be", or "may be". The important thing is that there should be a caution to this effect, because such edits often are, in practice, considered to be vandalism. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
    • Redirects after moves are created automatically. There is an "unless" qualification on the admonition against renaming pages. And the following text attempts to make it clear that it's the preservation of the link from the VFD notice to the discussion page that is the reason for this, with the implication that one must perform both of the page moves in order to avoid problems. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] Notability guidelines

Some summary should include references for notability, what is considered in inclusion -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prior VFD Consensus

There is also an archive of important debates and VFD decisions on notability. A summary of that would also be useful. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes without rationales may be discounted

Since when? People have voted down the line as Delete, Keep, or what not. Usually a simple vote without a rationale could be a user's an agreement to a prior argument. Users may be asked, by other voters, to explain their rationale, but does not mean that they won't be counted when the votes are added. If we had that kind of system, several articles now would have to be re-sent to VFD process with each person specifying why the need for deletion.

Furthermore, considerations should be taken care that no one should vote without a good reason to do so. A vote for keep after a string of deletes without any explaination or rationale is not logical, however it is considered by some administrators to be a valid vote. Granted, this might seem as forcing the inclusion of the article, especially in cases of narrow margins, but the general policy is that when you're not sure, don't delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a long tradition. The wording at the top of the VfD page used to explicitly say "Explain your vote even if you think it is obvious." (I'm not sure when that comment got lost but it is still in the Deletion Policy pages.) Now I'm not saying that a vote without explanation is always ignored, but I do always give it less weight than the vote of someone who takes the time to lay out a logical and fact-based argument. Four unexplained "deletes" can be completely outweighed by a single "keep" argument that is solidly explained based on policy and precedent and is supported by verifiable facts (and vice versa). Rossami (talk) 23:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A vote is a vote is a vote. Please keep things simple. Next thing in this chain of logic would be to ignore delete votes with invalid explanations, such as "Delete. Vanity" for the Albert Einstein article. (an extreme case, but I hope the point is clear). If you want to discourage malicious deletionists by this requirement, it will not help: they may easily cut'n'paste any rationale from elsewhere. So please respect the vote. VfD is an unpleasant burden I suspect for most of us (especially recent years, with slow load/save and huge influx of vanity pages). If I have something new to say in the vote, I will say it, just as I will write a missing stuff in an existing article. Therefore I strongly suggest to treat an uncommented vote as an agreement with previuosly expressed rationales. Mikkalai 20:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A vote is a vote is a vote, true, but these aren't votes. ☺ The text is trying to be descriptive of what actually happens in practice. And what actually happens is that people closing the discussion are sometimes persuaded by compelling arguments even when a raw tally of votes would render the opposite conclusion. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion: title or content

An important issue shall be clarified in the deletion policy. There are the following interpretations as for the meaning of the "deletion".

  1. Articles with the given title are barred from wikipedia
  2. Articles with the given topic are barred from wikipedia
  3. Article with the given content are barred from wikipedia

The existing policies seem to speak for the "content" interpretation. Specifically, Speedy deletion policy (General, #4) says: "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." Nevertheless I remember at least two heated discussions, when the "deletionists" interpreted that as deletion of the "title" altogether, in particular, disallowing even replacement with a redirect to an article where the disputed topic was discused earlier.

Please comment on this issue. Mikkalai 20:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a tricky one. And in the end it comes down to cases. The consensus might be to "Keep, Rename to a NPOV title, and delete the redirect", for example, which would naturally preclude the creation of a subsequent article by the old name. On the other hand, the consensus might be to "Delete but retain the redlinks", for example, which would preclude the same article content, but not necessarily preclude a different article by the same title. Uncle G 03:57, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
    • I agree, it comes down to cases. Sometimes after deleting an article I de-red-link it (for example, if it's a non-notable person), and sometimes I don't. Of course, most people don't explicitly indicate what precise flavor of deletion they advocate, which is a good thing: the more choices there are, the harder it is to have consensus. dbenbenn | talk 20:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to merge

Question - if an article should be merged according to VfD votes, who exactly does that? On the deletion history I've seen some admins who simply treat a merge (or transwiki) as a keep, and don't seem to add 'merge' or 'transwiki' tags to the relevant article. Radiant! 11:20, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I try to look at how many "merge" votes there were. If there were just a few, I usually make a comment in the closing statement along the lines of "consensus to keep with suggestions to merge." In those cases, I probably wouldn't tag for merging. If there was a significant block of "merge" votes, then I do tag the article to be merged at the same time that I remove the VfD tag. If it's a short quick merge, I might do it myself, but I generally just tag it, hoping that someone who voted to merge will be bold and carry it out. Joyous 12:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • In other words, it would be useful for VfD readers to help alleviate admin work, by reading closed votes and checking if there's any merging/transwikiing to be done? Radiant! 08:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Even better, VfD readers who aren't admins can close discussions whose consensus is "keep," "merge," "transwiki," or "redirect." Many of the discussions end with a resounding and uncontroversial "keep," and can be closed in a few simple steps. If anyone was looking to "alleviate admin work," THAT would be a wonderful help. Joyous 09:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are you serious?!

Does anyone honestly believe, that a user who's just read a VfD notice on an article and surfed to VfD for the first time, is going to read any of this?! It is far, far too long, and is self-defeating. There's nothing magical or mysterious about VfD. There's the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and the possible votes. Dan100 16:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Most people don't read any policies anyway. The purpose of this "guide" is to be the guide in tricky cases; in order not to repeat the very same arguments on each and every VfD page. Mikkalai 00:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if they just read the first section, telling them the most important things to remember, it's worth it. And yes, I do believe that people will read this. What they won't read is the top of WP:VFD. And that's because of the performance problems. They'll get frustrated waiting for the page to load and render. This page, in contrast, is relatively static, has just the two transclusions, and loads comparatively swiftly. This was explained at the top of this very talk page. Uncle G 14:10, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

[edit] Merge and delete? What's "incompatible?"

What's incompatible about these?

Why can't the sysop merge histories when deleting the articles as described in Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves?

And in the frequently encountered case of an article that, prior to VfD nomination, consists solely of a string of edits by a single contributor, why isn't it sufficient to place a note on the merged article's Talk page giving the final version of the text, the identity of the contributor, and the timestamp of the last edit?

If merge-and-delete is difficult, we should ask the developers for mechanisms to make it easier.

I looked into this carefully last year and was told by experienced Wikipedians that a marge-and-delete is perfectly acceptable under GFDL as long as the history is merged. At some point, people started saying "merge-and-delete is an invalid vote" in VfD discussions, but as best I've been able to determine, this is an urban legend.

I think this should be moved out of the "incompatible" section and placed somewhere else, with rephrasing along these lines:

  • Avoid "Merge to Example and Delete". Article merger requires that editing history of the source article be kept, for attribution purposes as required by the GFDL. Doing this properly when the original source of the text is to be deleted requires the acting administrator to "merge histories," which is difficult and laborious. On the other hand, "redirects are cheap"—they are easy to do and consume neglible resources. Please do not vote "Merge and delete" unless you can give a very good reason why the original article, under its original title, should not be left in place as a redirect.

Dpbsmith (talk) 17:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a fair point - yes, you can merge and delete, as long as you preserve the history somehow (either by merging it with that of the target, or by simply pasting the list of authors into the talk page of the target). However, merge and redirect is not only quicker, and technically easier, it doesn't need to go on VFD. Anyone, admin or otherwise, can merge and redirect an article without going through a discussion beforehand, so I'd like to see it continue to be promoted as a Good Thing, to help keep the length of VFD down. Plus redirects are cheap, considered non-harmful, prevent re-creation of deleted articles, give a useful indication of the article's history, etc, etc, etc. I love 'em. sjorford →•← 17:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See also this old discussion. It's not technically impossible but it's a whole lot harder so you must go the extra mile to convince the deciding admin that it's worth the trouble. The process is enough harder and a true need to "merge and delete" occurs infrequently enough that I'd prefer to leave it in the "incompatible" section and deal with the rare exceptions as they occur. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, let's leave it in place but can we soften the language a bit to indicate that a merge and delete is not invalid or actually incompatible, just undesirable? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewritten to make the point that merge-and-delete is perfectly appropriate and not laborious in the special case where the edit history is trivial." That is, the case where all of the significant content was added in a single edit by the single editor who created the article. It is frequently the case that someone creates a tiny substub that is not worth an entry, but worth including within some other article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transforming articles into redirects during VfD?

Random babbling.

On a related topic: I agree with Sjorford above. And I'd go further: almost any truly bad article, one that falls in the category "there could be an article on this but this isn't it and this isn't a useful start to one" should become a redirect if there's even anything vaguely plausible as a redirect target. And it's quite effective, since clueless newbies who drop in a few lines of garbage are usually baffled by redirects and don't realize they can easily be reverted. On the other hand, everything is kept open and aboveboard for the inclusionists. The problem is that such articles are usually already on VfD. Would there be any support for the idea that during a VfD discussion that seems to be heading for consensus to merge, it is acceptable to replace the whole article, including the VfD notice, with a redirect? While leaving the discussion on VfD for the full five days.

The chief objection I can see is that this of course this effectively takes down the notice that says the article is on VfD and shuts off discussion.

Perhaps we need stronger language and more how-to in the VfD guides, suggesting that articles should be turned into redirects unless there is a) nothing reasonable to redirect them to, b) it's important to remove the text from the history, c) it's important to make the action irreversible, d) it's important for some reason to delete the article title itself.

On the other hand, there's a danger that redirects could become "stealth deletions" since replacing an entire article with a redirect is much less visible than a VfD nomination.

[edit] "Extreme" and "organic"

Two more pieces of lingo that come up often and let me a bit puzzled (and probably other people too, so should be explained in the Guide):

  • Extreme keep/delete
  • Allow for organic growth/decay

--cesarb 22:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • There's really only the one principal user of the second phrase. When I first saw it, I took it at face value. When I realised that it was the rationale for practically every single vote by solely that user, I started to suspect that it was a rote phrase, possibly bound as a macro to a function key, not actually related to the discussion as such, and effectively devoid of meaning. As for the first phrase, it appears to be hyperbole, and to be just a variation on "strong". Uncle G 00:10, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion. —Korath (Talk) 00:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, Wikipedia:Extreme_article_inclusion.
    • "Organic growth" is a horticultural metaphor and refers to the process that a seed (stub) can grow (be expanded) to a tree (meaningful article) by the unregulated efforts of various users. Hence, the wiki principle. Since it applies equally well to just about anything, it is a rather meaningless phrase.
    • "Organic decay" is a parody of the above and refers to the idea that growth may be undesired for certain articles (e.g. vanity).
    • "Extreme keep/delete" is in effect a regular keep/delete, but it (usually) has the added meaning that the voter is unwilling to even consider changing opinions on the matter, something like "I don't understand how people can possibly disagree with this". The connotation can be said to be somewhat offensive.
  • I do agree that these should be put in the guide. Radiant_* 11:15, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing personal attacks

There has been some discussion recently about changing this text

Do not strike out other people's votes even if you believe them to be in bad faith. (But see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.) Multiple votes ...

to this text

Do not strike out other people's votes even if you believe them to be in bad faith. Do not edit or remove other people's comments, even if you find them offensive; instead, make a civil response. Multiple votes ...

Radiant! and Jayjg are correct that Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is not official policy. Nevertheless, egregious personal attacks are routinely removed from the comments of others when they are irrelevant to the discussion. I believe strongly that we should and must continue to do so.

VfD discussions are already far too adversarial. Allowing violations of no personal attacks policy to remain in the current view of the discussion thread serves no purpose and has the effect of poisoning the discussion. As much as I would like to ask every subsequent reader to be superhuman and to exercise perfect civility, I do not believe that is reasonable. Good editors either lose their tempers and respond in kind or waste valuable time trying to respond rationally to the troll (which, too often, merely leads to more personal attacks). It is far more efficient and effective to replace the personal attack with the piped link (personal attack removed). The troll gets a polite but firm rebuke, future editors stay focused on the actual discussion at hand and anyone wanting to verify that the edit was made appropriately can do so by quickly checking the page history.

I want to add the original text back. However, even if you disagree, the replacement text is incorrect. We do want the helpful formatting edits - especially fixing the indentation of votes so that they all comply with the bulletted style and stay easy to read. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without speaking to your main point (which I agree with; I just have nothing to add to what you said), I'd like to point out reformatting isn't what's being referred to by "don't modify others' comments". I suppose this could be made clearer, though. —Korath (Talk) 04:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
One issue I have with the idea is that I have seen people define a "personal attack" as "anything critical of me or my position". A second issue I have with the idea is that deleting personal attacks does not give editors a fair understanding of the true positions of the parties on each side of the debate. Jayjg (talk) 14:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have now realized that RPA does see extensive and legitimate usage in other areas. However, on VfD I have never seen it used except in bad faith. Precisely because what Jayjg says, people remove things that aren't attacks. Hence I do object to RPA'ing on VfD. Radiant_* 11:07, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: note on neologism

Stevietheman added this caveat to the section on neologisms. Note that some neologisms fast-track into becoming established and thus deserving of an article, e.g., e-democracy with the explanation "A neologism can have encyclopedic relevance before it's 'established'". I pulled sentence out. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but if the concept has encyclopedic relevance in a broad context, I do not believe that the concept would still be considered a neologism. Am I missing something here? Rossami (talk) 01:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way neologism is typically used in VfDs is to indicate a new word or phrase used by a very limited group. However, others use it to mean a word or phrase that is of recent origin, even if widely used; for example, Bling bling. Jayjg (talk) 14:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. Thank you. Anyway, I wouldn't object to a rewording of what I was attempting to get across. We shouldn't be saying to Wikipedians that no neologisms can have articles for them. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who gets to close debates?

I had long been under the impression that only administrators were allowed to close out VfD debates, as is reflected on this page, but during a tangential discussion on an RfC, other frequent VfD contributors noted that they had long been involved in closing out debates, needing an administrator's help only to "pull the trigger" on a delete result. My questions are these: if it is appropriate for non-administrators to close out VfD debates in which there is no conflict of interest (that is, the user did not vote in the debate and had no involvement in editing the article) then should that be reflected on this page? Would anyone have a problem if this became VfD policy? I know the VfD backlog is always a problem, and I'd be willing to help out, but as I don't have administrator status I want to make sure it's okay. android↔talk 02:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, non-admins should only close debates that they can deal with without an admin's help - keep, redirect, merge and so on. If closing the debate requires deleting a page, then the admin who actually does the deletion will want to check everything anyway before they pull the trigger, so there's really no point in doing the work twice. Plus there have been a few cases of somebody closing a debate, but the article itself never actually getting deleted. sjorford →•← 08:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think there's no problem with a non-admin closing a debate (other than delete). However, a reason for not including that in the 'guide' is the fact that we don't want just any user to close VfDs. Newbies should not, at any rate. An established Wikipedian can easily realize that it's really ok to do, as long as it's done right - and after the realization, such a person (unlike a n00b) is likely to also do it right. Radiant_* 11:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How-to guides

This page asserts that how-to guides should be transwikied to Wikisource; this is also frequently used as a reasoning on VfD. Should a paragraph be added to WP:WIN to reflect this? Radiant_* 11:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Er. This should be to Wikibooks. See Wikisource:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? and b:How-tos bookshelf. —Korath (Talk) 12:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, yes. Sorry. Point is there seems to be a discrepancy between this and WP:WIN, so probably either should be modified a bit. Radiant_* 12:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge and delete

According to the guide, merge and delete is a taboo vote because it is in violation of the GFDL. Usually people making such a vote do so because the content is useful, while the title is useless for a redirect. Why not treat merge and delete of article A to article C like this:

  1. Move the article from A to B, B being a title of the admin's choice which is a useful redirect which has not yet been created.
  2. Delete the subsequent redirect at A.
  3. Then merge the content in B with article C in the regular manner, leaving a useful redirect at B which contains the page history.

Page histories are preserved doing moves are they not? Sjakkalle 11:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting suggestion. It should work, to the best of my knowledge. However, I think a vote for that should be more explicit. — Gwalla | Talk 02:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it would work but it would be a lot of work to carry out. We have a terrible backlog of unclosed discussions on VfD/Old. The deciding admin can take a few minutes to do easy clean-up but you're really going to have to work in the VfD discussion to convince me that this complicated move is worth my time. (Your scheme also fails in two of the secondary goals of a redirect. Redirects are also useful for catching inbound links which have been missed and can be a polite but firm message to the original contributor about where he/she should have made the contribution in the first place.) Rossami (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I see now that I was not the first one to come up with this. It is already mentioned in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Sjakkalle 10:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not this should be in the Guide, but is there anything at all wrong with Weyes' suggestion that

It has been suggested that merge and delete is possible with proper attribution by moving the VfDed page to a subpage of the talk page of the article it's merged with and linking it from the talk page. This would preserve history and not leave behind a possibly meaningless (or worse) redirect.

I feel strongly that "merge and delete" is the best disposition of perhaps 5 to 10% of all VfDs, and if the only reasoning behind forbidding it is a technical issue, we should solve that technical issue. But why isn't the above a perfectly suitable solution? Dpbsmith (talk) 28 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)

I do find it to be a perfectly suitable solution. (Well, I guess I ought to, I posted on the Village Pump about it, though it hasn't gotten too much attention; I haven't the knack for advertising but the idea probably ought to be spread more widely.) Incidentally, as I found out later, Angela says that this used to be done before, as on Talk:Cardiff. I took that as suitable precedent to be bold and do so myself on some VfDs I've closed, but I haven't been closing that many lately. It is somewhat of a pain in the ass, but it fixes the attribution problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 28 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing VfD load

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load about ways that the size of VfD might be reduced. While there is still much discussion about possible new procedures and policies, there is a general consensus that one way to reduce the size would be to encourage editors to use other processes before or instead of nominating a page for deletion. Some of these other processes are:

  1. Research the subject. A lot of articles are placed on VfD because of very little/poor content, but then kept because the subject is determined to be encyclopedic, even if the article in its current state is not. Nominators should put more effort into finding out if the subject of the article is keepable, and make sure it is correctly categorized/stub-tagged/cleanup-tagged.
  2. Patience. Two applications of this -
    1. Give an article at least a little time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate. Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it.
    2. "A month" isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on "this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!" Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it. Not all editors are Wikipedaholics.
  3. Categorize/Stub-tag/Listing on the appropriate "needs attention" page. In conjunction with the two points above, an article may not have been "placed" or linked to a place where an editor with knowledge of the subject can find it and fix it.
  4. Merge and Redirect. Any editor can do this. See Wikipedia:Merge, Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. This would help with sending "cruft" articles/info to a place where the info will get attention from informed sources, and unnecessary/inappropriate stuff can get deleted without clogging VfD and requring admin attention. Also Move can be used by any logged-in user, when appropriate.
  5. Use the article's Discussion page to raise questions about an article's appropriateness. Also, discussions on the talk pages of articles related to the subject can be especially useful in determining if an article should be merged with a larger article.
  6. So fix it. While "write about what you know about" is certainly useful, it's definitely not a rule or requirement or anything. No reason that editors couldn't or shouldn't do some research (even if it's just online research) and make some improvements themselves rather than VFDing it.

Please note that this is not a suggestion about changing policy or procedure. This is simply "spreading the word" about some possible ways that we can reduce the size of VfD, and so this will be posted in several places around Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. Soundguy99 15:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Show your working'

I don't understand this phrase at all, is it British? (Teachers in America often say to students taking math tests, show your work.) From context, it seems to mean 'describe your reasoning.' Not certain, though. Want to see it made clearer. Any thoughts?

[edit] 3 Month Rule for Relisting

Where did this come about, since it seems to be a debate about this at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • There isn't any such rule. However, a relisting made too soon is likely to get a bunch of extra keep votes on principle, for that reason. Radiant_>|< 07:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just making sure. I am trying to get this set in stone, so people will not be trying to use a non-existing policy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HEY! "Votes have equal weight", when did THAT slip in?

"Votes" have equal weight? Never! Depending on the rationale, a single opinion can determine the outcome.

examples:

  • Delete: COPYVIO from <insert location> ~~~~
  • Keep: I totally rewrote it now ~~~~
  • Keep: Hey! There IS a reference! and 10000 google hits besides. ~~~~
  • Delete: Not referenced in pubmed at all (for a biomedical topic.) ~~~~

Has VFD become so separate from the rest of wikipedia?

Kim Bruning 14:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Er, what? I don't find what you refer to on the main page. But yes, VFD is rather messy. Usually, a rough vote count is done (necessary for sheer amount of discussions, and length of some) and the outcome thereof depends heavily on which admin does the closing. See recent debates on VFU, and such. I'd agree with David that it's a terrible process, only I can't think of anything better at the time. Radiant_>|< 14:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
It slipped in under Strong vs Weak votes, at least. And I can think up at least 5 superior alternatives to the current vfd at the drop of a hat, in my sleep, with both hands tied behind my back, with my eyes closed, while roasting over a pit of molten lava, and singing yankee doodle while immersed under 100 feet of water, drunk , sober, at 500 feet, and while morrisdancing all at the same time! ;-) Kim Bruning 16:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is impressive. Can I take pictures? Please? Radiant_>|< 07:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
To me, that wording merely says that the addition of "Strong" or "Weak" to your vote means nothing to the deciding admin. Nothing I saw implied that "all votes are equal". I will always weight comments that are based solidly in verifiable facts and/or established policy more highly than mere opinions or "votes" without comments. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:-) Kim Bruning 20:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure I strictly agree with the current wording in the guide. While adding "Strong" to your vote doesn't really mean anything (except that it's a strongly held opinion), adding "Weak" can. If you're not fully convinced of your own factual argument, I think it's reasonable for the rest of us to share your skepticism. Rossami (talk)
  • Ah, that part. Now that you mention it. Yes, the section says that 'strong' and 'weak' are basically meaningless, and that is not necessarily true. Although as far as I can tell, most closing admins do ignore such comments, they are not forced to. I believe the main problem for VFD is finding a balance between doing what seems common sense to closing admins (e.g. follow the discussion), and what everybody agrees on (e.g. a strict voting percentage). People doing either do tend to get flamed by adherents of the other. Ouch. Radiant_>|< 07:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I think an unnecessary ambiguity has been introduced to the description of redirect. As far as I'm aware, redirect has always been taken by closers to mean "edit the article to insert a redirect". if historical examples of a redirect close being performed in another way, they should show up in the log, and so I'll look for them. But as far as I'm aware this is a new idea. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] VfD redirect examples

From this sample of all redirect results I could find for the first week in January, all of them appear to have been performed in the usual way, by editing the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect may mean delete or keep

I'm not sure what this means. It's not a revert, and the edits seem to do things I don't seem to have anything to do with? Did I do something wrong?

I'm confused.

Kim Bruning 10:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh to remove the headings, ah, that makes ... um, sense? Amazingly, more headers return than were removed!
Hmm, as to why I removed them in the first place: An opinion to keep is Keep, an opinion to delete is Delete, I guess. Continuing my sophisticated ruminations along this treacherous path ;-) , an opinion that states Do Something Else is likely an opinion to Do something else, which appears to me not to be a vote to keep or delete. I got reverted, so I take it there's some flaw in my impeccable logic. What gives? Kim Bruning 11:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, sorry if it all came out funny. I had severe problems with Radiant's wordings, which reflected his belief that redirect is a delete, so I reverted his changed and then tried to restore yours. I think I was more-or-less successful. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that you're right, Kim, and that Tony is once more attempting to make a WP:POINT. In particular, the removal of my paragraph that an article should not be relisted merely because it has few votes if they are all agreeing votes (as he's recently been doing a lot) strikes me as such. There is no quorum on VFD. 3d 0k = consensus to delete. Radiant_>|< 11:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


Radiant, we do things by consensus here. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean he's trying to make some kind of point, and if he makes an edit you disagree with it doesn't mean he's being disruptive. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

On whether there is or is not a quorum, that's immaterial. If there is no clear consensus then relisting is an excellent idea. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No mind, Radiant reverted to a version that addresses both your concerns... from a certain point of view. :-) Kim Bruning 12:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. This is what redirect says in his version:

Redirect to Example" is a shorthand for pointing to Example". A voter who votes "Redirect" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article's content is discardable, a redirect should exist to redirect readers who use that article title to a more complete, more general, or simply pre-existing article. While "redirect" counts as a vote to delete, it's also a possible outcome to not delete the article and simply replace it with a redirect.

This is categorically wrong. A redirect is not a vote to delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, an opinion to redirect is an opinion to redirect, I'll wager. You going to fix? Kim Bruning 12:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not categorically wrong. It is simply something Tony disagrees with. But his opinion does not equal consensus. Several people use "redirect" as a shorthand for "delete and replace with redirect". Radiant_>|< 18:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Ah ok. Well that's ambiguous at best then. Most of the time when you redirect a page, you don't first delete it, else how will people be able to check its history?
Fair deal though, but NPOV it then. "Some people use "redirect" to mean Delete and recreate as a redirect. However, people closing votes can get confused by this, it's better to spell it out." Would that do? Kim Bruning 12:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

When I close VFD debates, I almost always count "redirect" as "keep and redirect" unless the vote specifically says "delete and redirect". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, deleting the edit history is not really the point. The problem stems from people forcing VFD to be binary, which it probably used to be when first conceived, but it has evolved so much that such is hardly tenable. It may make more sense to close a 6d/2k/2R VFD as consensus to redirect, than to close it as 'no consensus so keep it'. Radiant_>|< 13:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have discussed the 6d, 2k, 2r situation with Radiant!, and I think that my thoughts on the matter may have wider interest, so I am placing my response there, here as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In practise, almost all VFD closers will treat a nice string of pure "redirect" votes as a "keep and redirect". 6 delete, 2 keep and 2 redirect is a case where the comments need to be weighed up against eachother (comments always have to be considered, but this is a case where it is especially so). It would only rarely be a "delete", so the problem would usually be an "outright" keep or a "redirect". If I were a really lazy administrator I would say "no consensus to delete, defaults to keep". I do hold the opinion that this is the major administrerial choice, binary "keep" or "delete". The choice of whether to keep or redirect is an editorial choice, usually I will try to provide the extra service of determining that as well. In fact, in some cases, I might even call that a "merge" even though there were no such votes. Among other things, I consider these points:

  • Is the suggested target for the redirect related to the subject of the debated article? If not, I will say that the content is completely discardable by 8-2, just a redirect no merge. I have some memories of Tolkien metal here... However, if the redirect votes suggest a target related to the subject, I might consider merging a little bit of the content, especially if the reasons provided by the "keep" votes are good and convincing.
  • Do any of the "delete" votes say that redirecting is a silly idea? If so, I can hardly use that delete vote as an endorsement of a redirect.
  • Were the redirect and delete votes because the article was a substub? Maybe it might be decided to "keep" and put an expand-tag on it.
  • Is the suggested target for a redirect completely silly? If the debate on Heroin capital of the world has two redirect votes to Oslo, I would probably ignore them as joke votes, and say that there are 6 to delete, 2 to keep, and delete the article. (Yes, in spite of what I said earlier 6d, 2k, 2r can result in a delete, but my personal bar for doing so is pretty high, and that is why I closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tolkien metal as a redirect. For anyone reading this, sarcastic votes like this are often counted literally as what was written, such votes can induce doubt in the mind of the closing admin who is required to "when in doubt, don't delete").

You might also want to ask Rossami's opinion on this, because he is very adept (read:more adept that I am ;-) ) at closing such highly ambiguous debates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe that what an editor means by "redirect" depends upon their level of experiance. Most would simply imagine that the article vanishes from mainspace, exactly as if deleted. An eloquent rational for why an article does not belong, but prefaced by "Redirect" is a more compelling argument for deletion than "D. Yawn" is. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:DP's precautionary principle means that a sysop would be going out on a limb if he assumed that a bare "redirect" meant "delete". As a rule I don't think it's ever safe to count a vote as a delete vote unless it's a clear expression of a wish to delete. Indeed it would seem positively perverse to adopt any other approach. While I understand that others may be able to see untold subtleties in these discussions, it's easy enough for those in a discussion to express quite nuanced opinions.

It's all very well to speculate about how "most editors" think. We should simply make sure that if they have read the guide to deletion they'll know precisely how sysops will interpret their words. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting when no consensus because of few votes

We have for a long time had wording on this guide that says:

This does not apply if a VFD discussion had no consensus for a simple lack of interest (e.g. two or three votes total); those are sometimes relisted immediately, to draw people's attention to them.

Now I recently found quite a lot of votes that nobody else had gotten around to closing, and that I didn't feel comfortable closing because there had been so few votes and so little discussion. So I relisted them to give them more attention.

Another sysop objected strongly to this, for reasons that still are not clear to me, and has twice changed the wording to be far more prescriptive:

This does not apply if a AFD discussion had no consensus for a simple lack of interest (e.g. two or three votes total); those are sometimes relisted immediately, to draw people's attention to them. Of course, that does not mean that any AFD discussion with few votes should be relisted, esepecially if the votes all agree. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there is no quorum for AFD.

Now I don't know what the "quorum" thing is doing in there--of course there's nothing about relisting a VfD that stops a more bold sysop closing a discussion that's already gone on for a few days. As for not being a bureaucracy, it seems that the above change makes us more bureaucratic by saying that we've got to leave discussions on the old day log, unseen and undiscussed, until someone eventually comes along and closes them. We can't use our discretion, in other words. It seems to me that we'd need a more general agreement that relisting short discussions was a bad thing.

Now I suppose there may be a point if the "votes all agree". But if the word "all" only encompasses two or three votes plus a nominator it's obviously a different "all" than the one we would normally feel comfortable calling a consensus.

Still I think this should be left to sysop discretion. The guideline here is out of step with our existing policy, or at the very least seems to be an attempt to make it more rigid by the back door. I don't think it can ever be wrong to draw attention to a discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not correct to say this guideline is out of step, as it introduces nothing new to the paragraph in question. What it does do is clarify that articles listed for deletion do not have to be re-listed. If you feel uncomfortable deleting an article with a clear nomination and two keep votes, re-listing seems an effective way of "sprucing up" debate. If this catches the attention of another admin who is not as reticent, they can delete that article then and there if it has been listed for more than five days. We all seem to agree on that. The new wording clarifies without instruction creep, which is a good thing. I also fail to see how this undermines your individual discretion. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This paragraph clarifies the way everybody except Tony does VFD closing. For some unknown reason he believes that a unanimity for deletion can nevertheless constitute a consensus to keep. Of course he has been entirely unwilling to discuss the matter and has already declined or walked away from three attempted mediations. Admins are supposed to follow consensus, not ignore it in favor of their own opinion. Radiant_>|< 15:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

You still don't seem to be addressing the point. If a sysop doesn't think there is a consensus, he may decided to relist in order to bring the item to attention and hopefull get more discussion. This is not the sysop imposing his idea of consensus on anybody--any other sysop can still close the discussion. All it does is permit those who don't want to go guddling in the older day logs (going back more then five days, remember--we don't process AfD's younger than that) to find AfD's that may not have had much discussion.

Far from believing that "a unanimity for deletion can nevertheless constitute a consensus to keep", my actual belief is that in a very brief discussion unanimity in any direction may simply be a symptom of inadequate exposure. The solution to this is more exposure to discussion. This is quite different from what you wrote.

Your claim that "everybody but Tony" does closing the way you describe is beside the point. Your version actively proscribes anyone who doesn't believe that a consensus has been formed from relisting. This is quite incomprehensible. As usual I'm utterly baffled. What on earth are you up to? Why on earth shouldn't anyone who thinks that a an Afd could do with more discussion (whether admin or not) relist it on the current day log so as to draw more discussion? --Tony SidawayTalk 02:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)sti

Aaron, on the basis of your understanding that sysop discretion should not be limited by this clause, I've rewritten to emphasize that its intention is to ensure that nobody feels that they must relist, especially if all votes are the same:

This does not apply if a VFD discussion had no consensus for a simple lack of interest (e.g. two or three votes total); those are sometimes relisted immediately, to draw people's attention to them. Of course, that does not mean that any AFD discussion with few votes must be relisted, especially if the votes all agree. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there is no quorum for AFD. It's quite acceptable to close a discussion in which there have been few votes.

I think it should be enough, as above, to ensure that nobody feels that they must not close a AfD discussion just because there are few votes. They can close on the basis of a brief discussion. In fact it used to be my belief that it was advisable to close a solo nomination without discussion as a delete; I no longer believe that this is consistent with deletion policy. However others may differ with me on this.

Looking back at it, now, Radiant's clauses about bureaucracy and quora seem to make sense in the light of the change from should to must. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in focus

I'm pleased with the progress on the main page, and have tightened the wording slightly. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bot to list on VfD page?

I noticed that for the {{copyvio}} tag, a bot will list it on the main Copyvio page for others to scrutinize. However for {{vfd}}, it is necessary to manually create an entry on the Votes for Deletion page. Is there a way for the Votes for Deletion page to be automatically updated? -- Bubbachuck 14:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a copyvio bot? Dmcdevit·t 03:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've attempted a top-to-bottom rewrite of the Guide. My goals were, in order, to:

  1. Reduce the size of the page
  2. Remove the references to "voting" and return the tone to one of discussion and consensus-seeking
  3. Clean up the order and flow

Since the first draft of this Guide, we've said that it was much longer than desired. My current draft is just under 3000 words (down from about 6000 words in the "live" version). Printed, that works out to 7 pages (down from 13). Still longer than I'd have liked but a significant reduction. I think that it keeps all the relevant lessons, instructions and good advice. I did sacrifice some of what, in my opinion, were rare or secondary situations.

By more carefully describing the decision-process as discussion and consensus-seeking, I think that some of the lengthy commentary and the recent debates over, for example, the interpretation of a "redirect" vote during vote-counting and the question of a quorum become less relevant.

I'd like to invite comments at User talk:Rossami/GAFD temp before being bold. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • By "comments" do you mean "edit this like you would the main page" or "please list anything you'd like changed below this line"?
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Edit if you think it might be usable. Comment on major weaknesses and I'll try to fix them. Rossami (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and a hearty "Well done, much needed" to you! - brenneman(t)(c) 23:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been bold and posted the re-write. There is one remaining to-do. This draft was written on the assumption that the Guide would be narrowly applied to the AFD process. The old version applied to both AFD and the Miscellaneous Deletion processes. We need to either amend this in places or (and this is my preference), create a companion Guide for the MD process. Rossami (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "You should not turn the article into a redirect."

Under "You may edit the article during the discussion", it says you should not turn the article in a redirect. I certainly agree that this is generally true, but in some cases, a speedy redirect seems like the right thing to do. There was one yesterday that I redirected due to there already being a better article on the same topic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horse the band. Are situations like this worth mentioning, or are certain exceptions just assumed? Or do people feel that speedy redirects are always bad? Friday (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In a few cases, that can be an okay solution but they should be the exception, not the rule. And if anyone feels that the decision was overly bold, don't fight it when they revert it back. Having said that, I don't think it's worth mentioning. As long as it's the exception and that we let common sense prevail, I don't think we need to clutter up the instructions. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Texture

Texture reverted an edit by User:Reinyday which stated correctly:

"Note: Currently, lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, though it is commonly used as such.

Texture's edit summary read as follows: "rm new note - please discuss on talk page and gain a consensus for change - notability has been established as a CSD"

I have restored the note because:

  1. As i have noted earlier, it's factually correct.
  2. It is relevant to the voting shorthands on AfD that, although it is often cited as a reason for deletion, non-notability is not a reason for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy--indeed that policy states explicitly that an article that is "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" is one of the Problems that don't require deletion'. It is in fact a merge candidate.

I have therefore reverted to restore a version that more correctly describes deletion policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your revert. One could argue that lack of notability IS a criterion for deletion, because it's commonly used as such. IMO, the percieved conflict between the A7 CSD and the deletion policy makes it arguable that the statement is "factually correct". (Here I'm assuming that "notability" and importance/significance are basically the same thing.) Friday (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If notability is a valid reason for speedy deletion then I don't see how it can't be a valid reason for voting "delete". - Tεxτurε 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You could argue that notability is a criterion for deletion, but you'd be arguing with the deletion policy which specifically states that it isn't. That a number of editors either are ignorant of the deletion policy or disagree with it doesn't mean that the deletion policy is no longer official policy. This document must comply with official policy--as indeed must we.

Notability isn't a criterion for speedy deletion, as I'm sure you're aware. One criterion for speedy deletion of one type of article is absence of an assertion of notability.

As the situation stands, you can vote "delete" for any reason you like; however this doesn't mean that in doing so you are complying with the deletion policy. People who hold non-consensus views are entitled to have their views taken into account, but it's appropriate to note that such views are not official policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you referenced it I went to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It does not "specifically state that it isn't" a valid reason for deletion. If you would like to exclude notability as a reason for deletion I suggest that you make a proposal to change deletion policy and gain consensus. - Tεxτurε 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have again reverted your removal of correct, relevant statement of Wikipedia deletion policy. Please stop doing this or give a proper reason why Wikipedia deletion policy must not be correctly stated in the Guide to deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add new content that you have failed to gain consensus for. - Tεxτurε 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I see no justification for the continued reverting. The suggestion to talk about changes on the talk page before putting them in the article seems very reasonable to me. Friday (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I also had concerns about User:Reinyday's comment when I saw it this morning. Many users argue that notability is a valid proxy for "non-encyclopedic" - by which, those people mean the things discussed at, for example, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please remember that the list at WP:NOT was not intended to be all-inclusive. It is a set of examples chosen for their clarity and to address problems that were particularly bad at a point in our history. Being "non-encyclopedic" - something that would not normally be found in an encyclopedia - is and always has been a valid reason for deletion. Non-notability under that interpretation is an allowable argument for deletion and is compatible with the Deletion policy. Rossami (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Reinyday's comment is correct. The current wording allows that some editors use "notability", while noting that it is not part of deletion policy. Indeed the lack of consensus on notability (or even a widely accepted definition of the term) should as a matter of honesty be included in the guide to deletion. "Non-encyclopedic" is fine with me, but it has a distinct meaning from either "Notability" or indeed the ad hoc definition you give above. On Wikipedia "non-encyclopedic" has historically been used to mean not that encyclopedias wouldn't normally carry such an article (this would exclude a large proportion of our content) but that an encyclopedia article cannot be written on a topic.

We shouldn't remove this accurate and relevant declaration of the fact that notability is not in the deletion policy. Indeed, the only thing the policy has to say about notability is that if an article is on "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article", then it is a one of the "problems that don't require deletion". So it seems to me that the notability criterion can only ever be an argument for merging. And you know what? That's compatible with WP:NOT, too. An encyclopedia is about organizations. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've written a compromise that refers to WP:NOT on deletion and WP:DP on not deleting but merging. We should have a guide that reflects policy as accurately as is possible. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Please use the talk page, not edit warring, to resolve this issue. Friday (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of brenneman's revert of an edit by Tony Sidaway

Can we just leave the main page alone until we agree on something here, please?
brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "merge" is a problem

Article X is up for deletion. A notice is posted there, but not on article Y. Consensus is to merge X into Y. So this is done, but the regular contributers to article Y did not get a say in the matter. What recourse do they have?

I've seen it happen. The mergers show up at Y, insisting that the vote was legitimate and that article Y is now stuck with whatever gets dumped into it from X.

AlbertCahalan 04:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Once an article is merged, it is immediately subject to the regular rules of editing and content evaluation. The presumption is that the people who have interest and expertise in both articles X and Y will now work together to figure out how to write the best possible article. Such a deletion discussion merely says that the article X's history may be kept in the history file. It does not create a mandate that all the content or even a specific subset of X's content or "golden prose" must be kept intact. I suppose someone could claim that "article Y is now stuck with it" but that's simply not true. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allow removal of "AFD" tag if AFD sub-page never made

I think the text "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice." should be changed, to say you can remove it *if* no AFD sub-page was created after 24 hours. There seems to be no harm, since somebody can easily re-add it, if that's what they wish. Once the sub-page is created, than obviously, the notice must stay, until closing. --rob 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Additions to the Guide.

Just an explanatory note. I've made several changes to the Guide. The changes do not alter the intent and scope of the various instruments mentioned in the text; they only clarify long-standing policy and practice concerning mainspace deletions. This edit was made at the encouragement of two respected editors following a discussion I had with another editor on VFU. Regards encephalon 20:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy keep

Is there an established protocol for these? --- Charles Stewart 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles that are not frivolous

If someone cannot support a claim that an article is frivolous, especially if it refers to something that they do not know, then it is unjustified to place a deletion notice. M3Plus 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There's really nothing wrong with placing the notice, it'll improve the article if it's not frivolous. Bart133 01:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So when the deletion notice is removed by another individual, then it is confirmed. M3Plus 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The deletion notice must only be removed by the administrator who closes the AFD. In most cases this will be after seven days have passed, allowing the community to discuss the nomination properly. Premature removal by anyone else is considered vandalism. The JPS 10:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Personal testimony of editors does not count as verification. Uncle G 15:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] google section

The reason given in the original revert was...

(Wikipedia:Google test is already well cited in the Deletion Policy. While we can cite that page here, attempting to boil the whole page down to a simplistic sentence does justice to neither.)

This is false. Google hits is not mentioned in the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy at all. Since this section in not meant to cover the issue in depth, it's simply part of "general advice" and the link to the more in depth article is given. Users are more likely to see this page and will not know that Google hits are not a be-all, end-all method of determining whether an article should be deleted (from experience many users do act this way). There is no reason given why it shouldn't be included here. This helps users know about the issue. -- MateoP

It shouldn't be included, in my opinion, because I don't think it would be that helpful to include it. Refer users who think that Google hits is the be-all, end-all to Wikipedia:Google test. I don't think there are that many users who are careful enough to read this Guide to Deletion but not careful enough to realize that there is a link saying there are some issues with using Google tests, or realize that by themselves. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be entering a low-grade revert war over the paragraph below about the reliability of the google test. Rather than continue to argue in the edit history, I've pulled the proposed paragraph here so we can discuss it more fully. At the time of this edit, Mathwiz2020 and MateoP have put the paragraph into the Guide. Cryptic, Jitse Niesen and I have pulled it out using the argument that "Wikipedia:Google test is already well cited in the Deletion Policy. While we can cite that page here, attempting to boil the whole page down to a simplistic sentence does justice to neither." I'll add that we've had serious problems with the gradual bloat of this Guide. It is important that we be as concise as possible on this page. That means that we must be somewhat selective about what we choose to highlight here. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Take Google hits with a grain of salt
The article's title might be a translation from another language, and therefore doesn't get much attention in the English Google search. Likewise a phrase might get many Google hits but those aren't necessarily related to the topic of the article. Remember to assume good intent and try and bring in people who know more about the subject and are better equipped to provide verifiable sources. Don't rush to delete or keep an article based solely on Google hits. See Wikipedia:Google test for more information on the strengths and weaknesses of using google as a test.

I wouldn't say that Mathwiz2020 put the paragraph in there; he/she only corrected the capitalization of the paragraph that MateoP put in. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to user Jitse Niesen and user Rossami arguments

To Jitse Niesen, I am a user who is careful enough to read Guide to deletion but was not aware of the Google test article. No reason it shouldn't be here to let people who only read this article know about the issue. To Rossami, your reason for the revert is simply not true. Google hits is not even mentioned in the Deletion Policy. Furthermore, if your worry is about the page not being concise, my google hits section was very concise and contained a link to the more in-depth article. There are many other sections which are not concise. Perhaps you should break them down.

Anyways, I'm willing to compromise. I would be willing to allow 1 short sentence that does nothing but direct people to the Wikipedia:Google test article, but only if it remains in a header and only if the other sections are reduced also. --MateoP 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"People who only read this article" know about the issue because it is mentioned in the "See also" section. The issue is one of balance. I think one sentence in the "See also" section is enough. What other sections do you want to make more concise? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All of them. The previous user said that he had an issue of the article being not concise enough. Removing my (small) addition does little to that end.

Also by placing it in the see also section it gives the impression that it isn't part of the Guide to Deletion, it should be. Make an argument why the other sections are more deserving than the section on google hits. For now I'm putting it back in. --MateoP 16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You've failed to convince me. Your "small" addition is the proverbial camel's nose. It encourages the next person to add another "small" paragraph about their own pet peeve. In very short order, we get back to the 15 page version that everyone complained about. The Google Test is no more (or less) relevant than every other policy or guideline page we have. We don't and can't have a paragraph on each of them. I want the paragraph back out and still think that a "See Also" link is sufficient. Rossami (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't think it's less relevant then delete one of the other current sections and leave the google one in. --MateoP 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The other policy pages (for example, WP:NOT, WP:BIO, WWP:MUSIC and WP:CORP) are mentioned in single bullets - the maximum that is appropriate for Wikipedia:Google test. Rossami (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short guide to deletion for meatpuppets

I agree that external users are very unlikely to read the whole guide to deletion. I've written a quick FAQ here which attempts to specifically address the questions an external user is going to have when he comes on Wikipedia and sees his or his friend's article up for deletion. I thought something like this would be good to link to from the {{vfdvoting}} template. It was written somewhat stream-of-consciousness style as a response to some of the meatpuppet contributions I've seen recently, so naturally there are gaps - I'm wondering at this point what other editors think of the general idea. --Last Malthusian 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/i/Wikipedia_talk%7EGuide_to_deletion_archive1_7298.html"