Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

it begins...

In December, Stephen Gilbert switched the order of rules #1 and #2. Since I remember often referring to "rule #2" and the like, I switched them back to preserve the integrity of such references. But if people have been using the new numbering (for rules #1 and #2) a lot since then, then they should be kept in the new form -- so please restore them to Stephen's version if you know that. -- Toby 04:03 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an additional guideline - consider orphaning articles (and images) before deleting them. IE, if you're planning to delete Fred and that article is linked to from Flintstone, then remove the link from Flintstone to Fred. This means that people working on Flintstone are less likely to be surprised when that article dissappears. Not universally applicable, but I think it often makes sense. Martin

Sorry to spam recent changes, I had "minor" edit clicked and that wasn't minor, so I wanted to make sure the change & summary was seen. Koyaanis Qatsi

Discussion of speedy deletion -> Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

I feel like doing something non-controversial for a change, so I plan to create wikipedia:delete test and welcome. It's been talked about on the list, but AFAIK it's not been implemented yet, so here goes! :) Martin 20:08 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Just checking - if a page is deleted, is it policy to delete their talk pages without further discussion, or do they need to be listed on VfD too? I just deleted Talk:Keshavianistic oligarchy and Talk:Keshavianistic Oligarchy, the latter being a redirect to the former. -- Oliver P. 14:21 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think there's a list somewhere of orphan talk pages that gives suggestions... but I can't remember where... Martin
Ah... I've just found Wikipedia:Orphan talk pages - is that what you meant? It lists things that can be done with orphan talk pages, but doesn't give a policy on what should be done with them. I suppose I should have just put them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The ones I deleted had no useful information as far as I can recall, but I've just undeleted them so you can check to see if you think I was doing anything underhand... :) -- Oliver P. 01:38 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
As the initiator of Wikipedia:Orphan talk pages, I don't think it would be meaningful to have a policy for this because they don't really fall into a single category (other than in the broad sense that they are pages in a talk namespace who share titles with non-talk pages which have been deleted). Some are worth saving because they have interesting, thought-provoking discussion. Some are not worth saving because they consist only of "somebody wrote JGFFUSIDNHUISF in this page can an admin delete it please?" or "this page should be deleted to make room for a rename." Some can and should be refactored into general discussion pages or into other related talk pages. It's a call that should be based on the individual page -- just like any other page on the wiki. Nothing special. --Brion 04:31 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of speedy deletion -> Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

I'd like to propose that the sentence

"Here are some guidelines that those tasked with permanently deleting pages can generally be expected to follow in making the decision to delete or not:"

be changed to

"Here are some guidelines that should be followed when deciding whether an article should be deleted."

Comments, please. GrahamN 15:04 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but not yet. We need to fix the policy first, before making it more binding. Martin 15:26 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
My problem with the wording was not that it was non-binding, but that it could be taken to imply that "those tasked with permanently deleting pages" (i.e. administrators) are empowered to take decisions unilaterally, provided they follow the guidelines. This is not the case. Administrators have to follow the procedure further up the page. GrahamN 17:00 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of speedy deletion -> Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

There was some duplication here between the "don't list on VfD" section, and the guidelines, so I thought I'd try to clear that up. Also, (as threatened earlier), I'm moving the redirect guidelines to wikipedia:redirect. I don't think I've changed the meaning of anything, only the expression - but if you think I've tried to sneak something past, please revert me straight away! :) Martin 14:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Should versus Consider

I can agree that people should consider deletion, but I don't agree that they should delete all such redirects. Given that this is a recent change to long-standing guidelines, let's take it slow, eh? Martin 13:31, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

should doesn't mean must, I think it's appropriate for the guideline to be more firm when the decisions can be more objective (which is part of the reason why I like the longer version of the redirect deletion guideline). Anyway, the deletion guidelines as a whole could stand to be more a bit more direct. Daniel Quinlan 17:27, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Wording for this page

Well I've come to the conclusion that Daniel Quinlan and myself have such vastly different approaches on the redirect issue that we're having difficulty even communicating with each other, let alone reaching an agreement on what the best approach is.
However, I think saying "consider deleting redirects if the problems they cause outweigh their advantages" is something we can both agree on, so I think that'd make sense for this page. I've boldly done it for now. Objections? Martin 00:14, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let's call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. I believe certain redirects should be deleted. You believe no redirects should ever be deleted. Even when people generally agree on a guideline for which redirects should be deleted, you continually water down the terminology to actively discourage deletion, even when past history indicates that most people believe that deletion is the right option for certain types of redirects. As you just have done. I have tried to address your concern about "breaking" pages by proposing a way to phase out redirects before they are removed, but I have failed to get you, specifically you, to budge at all on the issue. Daniel Quinlan 00:51, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
You missed "unilateral". Also, I think you really ought to be "shocked" and/or "appalled" at this stage. It's kinda traditional. :)


Anyway, I guess I can live with your version as a compromise, though I still feel that consider is more appropriate. So, are we all done here? Martin 02:09, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Where should we draw the line?

I've just made a unilateral policy change, basically because lots of people have been deleting pages that don't fit into the seven categories in the "Procedure for deletion" section, and I was pissing everyone off by going around complaining rudely to them about it...

I've noticed that the "What to keep, what to delete" section seems to contradict the "Procedure for deletion" section anyway, because it says to delete "stubs that don't even have a decent definition" and even "stubs that will never become more than a simple definition". A decent definition is a stronger requirement than any definition at all. And I think that saying we can delete "stubs that will never become more than a simple definition" is too much - that involves a degree of prescience that I don't think someone can be expected to have. Just where should we draw the line? -- Oliver P. 20:01, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You do realise that what you added to 1.4 contradicts what you said to me on my talk page? You've made the policy say I can delete "blah blah his wife was great!. Angela 20:25, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I haven't contradicted myself. What I said to you was about the policy as it was at the time I said it. What you did was, in my opinion, contrary to what the policy was at the time. (I think. But see below for some confusingness.) Just now, I unilaterally changed the deletion policy so that (assuming my change sticks) what you did will be allowable in the future. So you should be happy! :P -- Oliver P. 20:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I understand now. I'm happy. :) -- Angela

Ah. It seems from the page history that this rather large change by Martin is the biggest cause of my confusion regarding the apparent contradictions between the "Procedure for deletion" section and the "What to keep, what to delete" section. It seems that Martin replaced a section headed "Don't list on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" with a section headed "What to keep, what to delete". The latter starts by saying, "When considering whether to list a page on VfD," but then goes on to talk about keeping or deleting (rather than listing) pages. So it could now be interpreted to mean that we are allowed to delete "stubs that don't even have a decent definition" and "stubs that will never become more than a simple definition" and so on without listing them on VfD. Perhaps "delete" should say "list", throughout...? I think I need to get Martin over here to discuss this... -- Oliver P. 20:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok, but bear in mind that Martin's decision isn't final. If any controversy remains over these points there needs to be more discussion about them. Angela 20:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi Oliver. I discussed this above with Evercat and GrahamN, but it was to some extent unilateral. Your change looks fine to me - you might want to check with Evercat - I think it was her suggestion.
You raise a good point about "What to keep, what to delete" - I hadn't seen that ambiguity (which existed prior to my change, just to engage in buck-passing!) - I'll edit it to make the meaning a bit clearer. Martin 09:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I wonder if patent nonsense should be another exception to the VFD requirement. Martin 10:45, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I thought it was covered by "no meaningful content". Angela 10:52, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
So it is. I added a link to make that explicit. Martin

I'm not convinced that Oliver's changes solve the problem he was concerned about. Could not "do not list stubs" be misinterpreted to mean that one can delete stubs without listing them on VfD? :-/ Martin 13:56, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, my concern in my last message was that the lead-in sentence in the section headed "What to keep, what to delete" was about listing on VfD, whereas the section itself spoke of deletion, not listing. Your changes today clarified a few things, but left in the word "delete" everywhere, so it sounded like we were allowed to delete those things without listing them. So I took the liberty of renaming the section to "What to list on VfD", and changing "keep" to "don't list" and "delete" to "list" throughout that section. I also removed the sentence that said, "These recommendations also apply to admins deciding whether or not to delete a page that has been listed on VfD for a week," because that the section (according to my interpretation) is about what to list on VfD, and not about deletion. But if it's still unclear, I'll try again... -- Oliver P. 14:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with these three points;

  1. List pages that you believe will simply will never become encyclopedia articles.
  2. List stubs that you believe will never become more than a simple definition.
  3. List stubs that don't even have a decent definition.

Why would you want to list these? They should be deleted on sight. Angela 14:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My reasons would be:
  1. I may believe that a stub will never become an encyclopedia article, but I may be wrong. Therefore, list on VfD, in case I'm wrong.
  2. I may believe that a stub will never become more than a simple definition, but I may be wrong. Therefore, list on VfD, in case I'm wrong.
3: Scenario: somebody writes two paragraphs of useful text on an encyclopedically important subject area, but neglects to include a decent definition. Listing on VfD gives the author, or someone else, a chance to save the content by adding a decent definition.
Scenario two: somebody finds a picture of someone famous, and creates a new article on that person, initially including just the picture. After uploading all the pictures, they then go through and add stubby biographies.
Scenario three: somebody adds some definition-free content at British history. A sysop doesn't know about the article on History of the United Kingdom, so thinks it should be deleted. If listed on VfD, someone will notice and do a redirecting merge.
However, articles in all three cases can be deleted on sight if they meet one of the seven criteria for instant deletion. Martin 15:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree. (Useful contribution by me there. ;) -- Oliver P. 15:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"No meaningful content" (allowed to delete) overlaps with "stubs that don't even have a decent definition" (not allowed to delete). Useless stubs should be deleted. They don't help someone that actually wants to put some effort into writing a proper article. If the stub makes sense and has something useful then fair enough, but it if doesn't and is never even likely to, then delete it. Angela 14:19, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The intro to that section starts: "If a page does not fall into one of the seven categories listed at the top of this page". Hence, if an article has no meaningful content, then it can be deleted on sight, even though it may also be a definition-free stub. If a definition-free stub has meaningful content, is not a test page or a piece of vandalism, is not very short, is not reposting deleted content, was not created by a banned author, and is not a personal subpage, and does not only contain external links, then it should be listed on VfD rather than deleted on sight. Reasonable? Martin 15:15, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Argh, edit conflict! My reply to Angela is that if someone writes a paragraph about a noteworthy person, but neglects to say what that person actually did that made them noteworthy, then that doesn't have a "decent definition", but I don't think it should be deleted on sight. If a page has some meaningful content, I can't think of a way in which this wouldn't be of help to someone wanting to expand it. They can always just stick some key words into Google, and quite likely end up with a whole load of pages that would enable them to put that information into a meaningful context with very little effort. And if not, it can always be deleted after the seven days on VfD, with little harm done. -- Oliver P. 15:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in replying, real life intervened. I have no objection to what you have both said above, although what counts as patent nonsense may be subjective. Perhaps I should try to be slightly less hasty about what I delete as nonsense. Angela 22:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A recent discussion of the policy in relation to redirects can be found at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects.

Opinions differ as to the correct approach to pages with only external links is not a very useful thing to have on a policy page. Angela

But it is true, which is a benefit. ;-) Martin

Discussion of speedy deletion -> Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion