Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive October 2004 to December 2004

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

Consensus emerging from the wreckage? Building blocks for a new poll?

It looks to me that there would be a concensus for having a period of three months between listings of the same article on VFD. Are there any folks who would oppose this? We could have flexibility for procedural violations during the listing and articles that have changed radically since their last listing, or articles that pose a threat (eg copyvios).

Feedback on this before we start to craft a poll? Thanks, Mark Richards 15:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would expect there are a lot of people who oppose this. I certainly do. anthony (see warning) 17:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you spell out what the reasons would be? Mark Richards 02:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find it silly to have to repeat what is already explained above, but...
  1. It solves virtually nothing.
  2. It adds beurocracy to an already far too beurocratic process.
  3. "The reason why I do not want to see a rigidly stated policy is that I think it would open the door to gaming the system."
  4. "If the first decision was wrong, it must be possible to reopen the case."
  5. "Repeated nominations means there is no "consensus", and some "elections" have bad results that must be rectified by renomination."
  6. "A page that survives VfD may be sent to clean up (for example) if it stays in clen up forever, someone may decided enough is enough and relist it."
  7. "Several valid reasons have already been noted for a re-listing (review of the decision made by the deleting/keeping admin in a contentious case; lack of cleanup of a "keep and cleanup" article; gaming the system)."
  8. "Fight Instruction creep."
  9. "Any and every deletion should be solely on merit at that time. If a bad article escapes deletion there should be nothing preventing double jeopardy."
  10. "While I agree with [the] sentiment, I don't think it should be a strict rule. There are times when it is reasonable to reopen voting on a VfD even when notability doesn't change (this just isn't one of them). [....] As for an example [...] consider the case of where only 2 or 3 people comment on the matter. I could see reopening VfD at that point, but if nothing has changed the old "votes" should be kept. VfD shouldn't set binding precedents, either for deletion or against it. Binding precedents should only be set explicitly, on broad issues, after a long period of discussion and a strong showing of consensus among a large group of Wikipedians."
  11. "If you think a relisting is unjustified and premature you are free to vote "keep", as many people seem to have done on GNAA. I also think it should have waited longer for relisting, but nothing ought to require it."
  12. "It is better to have a "cooldown" period of a month or so per person. If one guy lists it on VFD, and then another guy lists it on vfd, that should be okay." [emphasis mine]
anthony (see warning) 13:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rather than add specific instructions to the vfd procedure, why don't we just try adding a guideline on the policy page that notes that, generally, articles should not be relisted on vfd unless significant time has passed or there's a good reason. It seems to me that, since this is more a documentation of general opinions rather than a new rule, there wouldn't be any need for a poll (let's make sure there are no standing objections first, though), and the community can decide on a case-by-case basis what "significant times" and "good reasons" are, leaving quite a bit more flexibility. What do other people think of this? - RedWordSmith 17:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem is, what happens if someone thinks the "good reason" was that the sysop doing the deletes made a wrong decision? For example, a couple of weeks ago, somone relisted a VfD because the sysop in question said that 60%(?) was not a "concensus" as his rule of thumb was 66%. (note, the numbers may be wrong, but it was something like that.) The guideline you're proposing is too vague to be useful. Rather, the entire VfD is too vague to be useful, but then I don't know that wikipedia is ever going to get a concensus on what is deletable and what is not. -Vina 19:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's one of the downsides of consensus-based decision process. That said, both text proposals below currently mention "procedural irregularities", which is what I presume the person listing the article would call it, and I think VfD could make a proper decision if a similar case came up in the future based on the circumstances. - RedWordSmith 04:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is exactly what I think we should do. As a rule, this is a bad idea. As a general guideline, I think it is quite appropriate. VfD needs to figure out how to remove listings which clearly violate guidelines, but this problem should be solved more generally than for this rare instance. anthony (see warning) 13:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it would work fairly well, and I don't think a formal codification of the rules would work significantly better. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I have noticed, when the same articles appears very soon on VfD, there is a strong tendency for votes to vote for its rentention for that reason alone. Sometimes the voter even comments to the effect that the article probably should be deleted but that it shouldn't be done this way and therefore the vote is Keep. Accordingly, at the moment, attempts to place articles on VfD again very quickly have been mostly counter-productive for those who have done it. So the system itself, seems to be working already as this rule would have it work. So, I'd say leave well enough alone. Jallan 21:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Policy proposal

So how about adding this to to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page:

Relisting
Having survived a vote for deletion, a page should not be relisted without a reasonable period of time passing (three months would seem a reasonable minimum). In exceptional circumstances, including procedural irregularities on the previous listing, articles that have changed radically since being listed, and those that pose a potential legal threat (eg copyright violations) relisting is acceptable.

Any comments / changes before I add that? Mark Richards 02:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I think that since there is no evidence that relisting is actually causing any sort of problem, a sensible guideline like that is a much better idea that adding more legalistic rules to the deletion process. I approve. —Stormie 03:51, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

That still seems a bit too narrow to me, and too much of a stretch given the general remarks in the previous poll. How's this modification:

Relisting Guidelines
Having survived a vote for deletion, it is generally felt that a page should not be relisted without a reasonable period of time (three months seems reasonable) passing. However, this does not apply in some circumstances, such as for procedural irregularities in the previous listing, articles that have changed radically since being listed on VfD, and articles that pose a threat to Wikipedia, including potential legal problems.

[note that some other people have edited this here and there, see below]

Copyvios have their own procedure, so we don't need to address them directly. It's probably worth waiting a bit longer for more comments, regardless. I know this doesn't say "three months," but we don't seem to have a solid consensus for that; eyeballing the discussion above, I'd say a handful of people in both the "Yes" and "No" camps said they'd be ok with a time limit of a single month, and a few people wanted a longer time limit. - RedWordSmith 04:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds better. —Morven 06:05, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
I made a simplification to the last few words about threats, to clarify that this really relates to things which pose a real liability. Mark Richards 17:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. - RedWordSmith 18:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why not add in the 3 month guideline again? Intrigue 23:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As mentioned before, there does not seem to be a consensus for a strict three month guideline. In the disregarded poll above, Seth Mahoney, Chuck, Audee, dylain, and zoney seemed to make comments supporting a shorter time on the "yes" side (although some of them only for the first relisting), and RickK, Dpbsmith, Stormie, Cyrius, and WhisperToMe seemed to support either a shorter time limit or didn't give a specific time limit on the "no" side. - RedWordSmith 00:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree with you talley - RickK says he would support a time limit of 1-3 months, I read Seth says he would support three months, Chuck says he would support a maximum of 180 days, Audee says they would agree with Chuck, Dylain also says he agrees with Chuck, Dpbsmiths comments to support a policy change with a three month limit, but not a firm rule, Stormie says he would support a time limit, but doesn't specify the time, Cyrius says he is not opposed to a time limit, Whispertome seems to oppose it, and Zoney says she would only support a one month limit, but we're not going to get complete unanimity. I took out the strike throughs, but don't take that as an edit war - let me know what you think ;) !Intrigue 02:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, having considered it further, I do not support any time limit any more. I think a recommendation/guideline, backed up by people voting "keep" if an article is inappropriately relisted, is the best thing. We don't need more legalism in the process. —Stormie 02:38, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it does look like the vast majority would support a time limit around three months - I would certainly like longer, but that is what the concensus looks like. The problem with not giving any indication of what people thought a reasonable time would be is that it is open to 'well, ten minutes seems reasonable to me', or 'this should not be listed for another year'. If it's just a guideline then I don't see the problem with putting it in. Although people could just vote to keep, part of the purpose of this it to reduce traffic on vfd by reducing repeat listings, and correspondingly reduce the time that people have to spend voting. Mark Richards 02:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Stormie pretty much said it. Although since we are offering a guideline and not a rule, and it doesn't apply perfect, Wikipedia:How to create policy (itself a set of guidelines!) says that we should "Choose policies that have sprung up organically." If it's clear after a few months that people have rejected relisting within that timeframe, then we can document it. VfD regulars should be well aware of this discussion, or, at the very least, the previous poll. New users, I'd hope, would err on the side of caution if they know about the previous VfD, and if they don't, no guideline is going to prevent them from relisting the article. Also consider that saying three months is practically inviting people to wait exactly three months and then relist the article without any further thought; see the guidelines against "being too prescriptive".
That said, if you're both still convinced that further explanation of "reasonable period of time" is required, I can see two ways to possibly resolve this. I would not object to wording that makes it absolutely clear that the three month suggestion is not as strongly supported as the rest, even though a plurality seems to support it over a longer period of time or no period of time at all. Alternatively, a well-designed approval poll, listing the various options, could be conducted, and the above text could be entered onto the policy page in the meantime without that explanation. Thoughts? - RedWordSmith 05:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd probably want to wait a little while before another poll, I do think some indication of time is helpful, although it might be worthwhile to wait to see whether this discussion dicourages more repeat listings. If it doesn't, I'd be inclined to press for a poll, if it does, perhaps no action is necessary. Mark Richards 15:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this policy. I would imagine that there are a number of users, including experienced editors, who do not normally haunt VFD but who frequent it sporadically. They may have misssed a previous VFD discussion, and would either have been a pivotal vote in borderline cases or may have something vital to contribute to the discussion that would sway other people's opinions. In general, I would say that the ban we need is not one based on time, but one based on the same person listing the same article for VFD. In other words, a person should not be allowed to list the same article multiple times, but there should not be a clear restriction on the times between listing an article for deletion (other than a restriction on clear abuse of the process, such as relisting an article within a few days). --Lowellian 06:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is a case where some higher-ups, SYSOPS, or perhaps 1 or 2 people must make the decision. This issue will be VFDed untill the end of eternity; but banning VFD's will cause a whole host of other and new problems. We need a radical soulition, is there not one or two people who administer wikipedia from the highest position? That person needs to make a final decision on this article, elsewise this place will tear itself apart. Pellaken 10:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aaargh, I hope not. Mark Richards 15:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Amen to that. There are all sorts of articles where no "final decision" has ever taken place, yet this cyberplace has not torn itself apart. There is a tiny proportion of extremely contentious articles that are constantly topics of dispute. Nobody has come up with a general solution to this problem and perhaps nobody ever will. It doesn't seem to affect the other 360,100 articles all that much. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's set ourselves the target of getting back down to 750,000 articles by Christmas! Mark Richards 22:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then we can have the press releases all over again when we get back to 1 million, and beg for another $50,000! anthony (see warning) 19:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see "procedural irregularity" changed to "procedural irregularity or disagreement about final outcome". There are currently a number of VFD which have, counting votes, reached a consensus to delete. However they are not being deleted on the grounds that the article has been considerably altered and so some of the votes are now invalid, but nobody comes back to check. It seems to me that it is reasonable to start voting again where an article is no longer substantially as it was before. It's going to save much argument over some of the inconclusive VFD discussions.. Alternatively, an explicit policy for restarting a VFD (and resetting the votes) would be a good idea. Mozzerati 09:16, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Policy proposal concerning episode guides and episode lists

Concerning episode guides and episode listings of television shows. Recently I placed a VfD for List of Full House episodes, and the general consensus was that a policy change would be necessary before any action could be taken. There is a current glut of episode guides - see Category:Lists of television series episodes. Contained within many of these episode guides are individual articles for individual episodes, which remain to be fancruft of the highest order. The suggestion is that all episode guides and individual episode articles should be deleted as fancruft, unless otherwise noted for cultural impact. In other words, as stated in the previous VfD, because it is a pop culture phenomenon, "Who Shot J.R.?" from Dallas would be a candidate for an article; "Roswell That Ends Well" from Futurama would not. Any thoughts? Ian Pugh 13:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Roswell That Ends Well" won an Emmy, btw. Postdlf 01:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As I said on the VfD vote, I agree that TV episodes are not encyclopedia material unless they have cultural significance, as with "Who Shot J.R.?" I would support a specific policy to that effect. I would also note that the same rule should apply to other media—issues of comic books, episodes of radio shows, etc. —Triskaideka 16:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how having articles on each episode of major television shows would hurt Wikipedia. The one issue is that in many cases it would be better to combine a season, or a show's entire run, into one article, rather than having many stubs. This is already done in many cases. - SimonP 16:06, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Simon's suggestion is a very good one, and used with a lot of success. Keeping all the summaries in one long article makes it easier to format them. Truly pivitol episodes of cultural significance ("Who Shot J.R.?") can be broken out from the combined articles as needed for size reasons. Some successful examples:
I do not see this as a "deletion policy" item, more one for the Manual of Style. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
Agreed. The typical episodes of most shows don't need individual articles, and using the Template:Infobox episode list, as implemented in Template:Infobox Sliders episodes, you can link notable episodes together. violet/riga (t) 16:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I like Sliders very much, but not one episode deserves its own article and they should be merged into "season #" articles. It is not the episode's impact to the fictional show that needs to be important, rather, it is the significance of the episode to culture. You have to ask "What about this episode makes it unique or controversial?", "What was the reaction to the episode?", or "How did it change television?". Some more notable episodes might be the finale of M*A*S*H, the first The Mary Tyler Moore Show episode showing a married couple sharing the same bed, etc. -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
I support the deletion of episode guides. Individual episodes should almost never have either mention nor brief summary, unless they meet a very high bar for notability. I can't think of any episodes of any TV shows I watched that meet this bar. This level of fancruft needs to go. --Improv 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't see any basis for arguing to delete lists of episodes and I really don't see what the problem is with having well-written articles about individual TV episodes, no matter how obscure the series. However, I don't see much value to having a multitude of stubs and that they would be better treated as annotations on the list of episodes. older≠wiser 17:42, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Same here. Should we also delete all the lists of subway stations? Those strike me as being even less deserving of articles than TV episodes, but I'm fine with lists of them nonetheless. Bryan 17:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I basically made my view known on the Full House deletion page, but I'll reiterate it here and expand. Episode guides serve almost no purpose without some description of what happens in each episode, as the title itself usually says nothing. However, I am against individual shows having their own articles (with very rare excpetions made, as others stated above). If we start having detailed (or even not so detailed) articles on any old episode of a show, when will it end? Are we someday going to have an aritcle on every episode of Scarecrow and Mrs. King? You Can't Do That on Television? Welcome Back, Kotter? Cop Rocks? (picking semi-random examples here). Hell, why not 60 Minutes, they've only done several thousand episodes? How many TV shows have been aired in the past 50 years? Are we welcoming articles on all of them? Clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. Perhaps the best solution would be to allow episode guides for each series (any series, even stupid ones like Full House), with a very brief description of what happens in any episode (say, 2 sentences or so) as part of the list. That way the list isn't completely useless, but we aren't overwhelmed with articles on episodes (keep in mind there are many important works of literature without their own articles, or with mere stubs). I'm sure this solution will be fought tooth and nail by those who have written detailed articles on every episode of Deep Space Nine and whatnot, but I think it may be the best compromise. -R. fiend 18:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is far too much useful information in these articles to just throw it all away. If you want to reach consensus, I think you need to look at some way to keep the information (though not necessarily on Wikipedia). Merging into fewer articles is one solution. Transwiking somewhere else is another. Quarantining into a format where logged out users, search engines, and random page doesn't see the articles is probably the best solution, but would require changes to the mediawiki software. The information in these articles might not be important enough for your view of Wikipedia, and there are many good arguments to be made for the encyclopedia to narrow its scope. But just mass deleting the information without even keeping a copy somewhere for people who are interested in it is just unacceptable. anthony (see warning)

I would support the formation of a separate wiki for episodes of TV shows, and maybe similar elements of pop culture like those I mentioned above, if we wanted to bundle them in. Support it morally, I mean. I don't have any interest in helping to maintain it, but it seems like there's not a shortage of people who would. —Triskaideka 19:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)\

I understand the various concerns here. It is a lot of information, but I think the major problem here is, it doesn't apply to anyone but those who already know about these shows. That's fancruft, and there's a lot of it. This is also what makes combining the articles problematic. Look at the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes and the incredibly extensive articles written; they're paragraphs and paragraphs long, and would increase the season/episode guides to unreasonable lengths. I can't even begin to help with reducing them to combine them, as I do not know what the most pertinent information is. Ian Pugh 19:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the Buffy link I see this is already beyond the stage I thought it was. In theory I don't like deleting lengthy factual articles, but I do wonder where this is going to end. Perhaps anthony's suggestion of a separate wiki for TV shows is the best. Right now one of the problems is nearly all of the shows that have this level of detail are sci-fi/fantasy, or animated. Wikipedia is already so overwhelmed with minutae of that sort that we risk being seen as more of a sci-fi encyclopeia than a all-encompassing one. I think that is a problem that can harm wikipedia's credibility as a valuable source of information. So it seems the scope of the problem is getting much bigger and so must the solution. We're no longer talking about deleting a single article of Full House episodes but of starting an entirely new wikiproject, which I for one have little interest in starting, or participating in. I have to weigh in with Triskaideka on this. I also think we have to bring more people into the discussion. -R. fiend 20:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't have an interest in starting a new project either. I'm busy enough working on other things. I think the best solution is just to mark the articles in some way that says they are special interest. Yes, the people interested in this are those who are interested in the shows, but that's probably more than the people interested in Communications in Angola, and it would be ludicrous to remove that information without moving it somewhere first. I think it's the responsibility of those who want to remove this information from Wikipedia to get the consensus of others, and the way to do that is to retain the information in some way. I'm not volunteering to set up the new project, because I think the information is perfectly fine right where it is. anthony (see warning) 20:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we need more opinions. The question is, where can I get more peoples' attention to the issue? This is something that needs serious consideration from all sides. However, I am against the idea of a separate project, and still very resolute in deleting these, mind you; it goes back to R. fiend's comments of just how many shows this whole "episode list/article" thing entails on Wikipedia. The fact that these are mostly science-fiction/fantasy shows with known hardcore audiences is something of a tip-off that this is fancruft - if you create a separate WikiProject, who else is going to make it a complete project, beyond those fanbases? All those fans of Joanie Loves Chachi or The Ropers? I still don't think anything Wiki should try to be like EpGuides or TV Tome. Ian Pugh 21:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we need more opinions. I just think we need to come up with a compromise solution. Destroying this information is not acceptable. anthony (see warning) 02:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I say keep them. I think wikipedia's fancruft and details are a strength, not a weakness. That is what distinguishes wikipedia from other encyclopedias and also what draws in new contributors. General knowledge is not exactly hard to come by, but minutiae often are. Television is a pervasive and ubiquitous medium and popular (not just culturally significant) shows translate well to a compendium of society's knowledge. Wikipedia is a long-term project and credibility is a short-term guess of other's views based on what you see now. Worrying about Wikipedia's mythical credibility by deleting things isn't particularly productive in my view. Today's Pokemon and Buffy contributors are our future leaders and thinkers. Embracing their contributions now encourages more important contributions in the future. I have no objection to re-arranging episodes into larger collections of episodes, preferably in a manner that makes them all a nice length for an article. The Steve 22:13, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

The way Template:Infobox The Simpsons episodes does it is best. 15 key episodes have articles, and a link to an entire list. I wonder if all the Twilight Zone episodes still each have their own article... Chuq 00:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with mass-deleting articles, period. Especially when we are talking about a broad category which occasionally has lots of very detailed work going into it. Information is good. Some people can write about Great Literature. That's good. Some people can't do that, but they can write about Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes—why shouldn't we let them? It doesn't hurt anything, the material is decent, and the information is useful. It's also easy for a large number of people to write about, so it brings in new contributors.

Of course, if you find an itty-bitty article about an unimportant episode, you should redirect it to a list and merge the information.

Transwiki-ing is not a great solution unless the process becomes much easier and the other wikis are more closely connected than they are right now. It's too awkward. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spectacular arguments all around. This is my first major discussion concerning articles on Wikipedia, and I'm glad that Wikipedians can enjoy passionate debate in such a kind manner. If only U.S. politics were so civil... ! Upon reading the last few arguments, I'm starting to soften up. I still don't like fancruft on Wikipedia, and I still don't think it belongs, but I think my major frustration lies in what qualifies as deletable under that word. Perhaps that is what we need to be aiming for, rather than going after specific attributes of what we think it represents. Again, citing R. fiend - where does it end? Where do we draw the line? Again, thank you for a wonderful discussion table. Ian Pugh 02:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also agree that mass deletions are not generally good, but I still have to ask, where does it end? Do we welcome an article on every episode of every TV show ever aired? I don't care to do the math, but if anyone does, I'd be curious as to how many articles we could theoretically have (discounting game shows, news shows, and other non-plot driven programs). I'm sure it's a huge number. I also feel I need to stress the other fields where wikipedia is somewhat lacking. I know that deficiency in one field does not warrant deletion in another, but an encyclopedia that has an article on The episode of "The Facts of Life" where the girls start their own pizza delivery business but not one on Hamlet is not a true encyclopedia but an encyclopedia of pop cutlure (and mediocre pop culture at that). Obviously we are nearly not at that stage, but I use hyperbole to make a point. There are subjects that are too minor to be worthy of encyclopedia articles, and what exactly these are needs to be the subject of considerable debate. I may argue that The One Where Rachel Loses a Bobby Pin But It Turns Out Ross Had It All Along is not as worthy of an article as Anthony Trollope's The Warden, but some may disagree. Such is the nature of the beast. I am starting to think that maybe the laissez faire approach is the best, but I still worry that this favors the interests of a key group of fanatics over what is more significant in the long run. Of course, what is "significant" is anyone's guess. I guess my basic point is that if Elementary, Dear Data has an article then that opens the door to 100,000 other articles. Yes, it will never actually happen, but in theory it could. I want to stress that I am not necessarily saying we should delete existing articles on TV shows, but we do have to consider what this encyclopedia is promoting as significant or important. Would those who endorse episode articles feel the same if 1/4 of all articles on wikipedia were synopses of TV epsiodes? I think its somewhat a matter of consistency. Yes, it's theoretical consistency, btu consistency nonetheless. -R. fiend 05:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Where does it end? It ends when the article is finished. There's only so much you can say about Buffy #32, and once it's been synopsised and polished, the contributors must move on. Sooner or later, some of them will read The Warden, one or two of them might actually like it, and they will use their precis skills from endless Buffy episodes to write an article on it. So what if there are a million pop culture articles in the Wikipedia? Remember, this is not and will never be a print edition. A first-time user can't possibly look at it as a whole and immediately realize that there's too much of any particular subject. The main point of entry is most likely either the main page (featured article) or a search of some kind. Someone who wants to know about dogs can look that up and find many excellent articles with pictures about various types of dog without ever knowing or caring that there are even better articles on each and every Star Trek episode ever made. Pop culture = culture that a lot of people like. Guess who's making the Wikipedia? A whole lot of people. It's natural that there's going to be a concentration of pop culture here. Relax, enjoy it. Removing it won't help a thing in a collaborative project like this. Popular things will just get created again and again. The best way to improve it is for you to go out and write that article on The Warden. Make it good enough to be a featured article. Concentrate your efforts on quality contributions. If you want a good feel of where to draw the line, study Vfd. It's somewhere between Elementary Schools and Universities, between Man Faye and Kim Criswell, somewhere decided by group consensus. The Steve 09:38, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
The argument that "we don't have information on lots of things that are more important" is perhaps a bit idealistic. If the people who write the Buffy episode articles were not writing about Buffy, they would probably not be writing about something else. They would probably be taking their time and energies elsewhere. The folks who work on these itty-bitty fan details are not taking time and effort away from contributions to subjects that you consider more "serious"—except, of course, when we get into these lengthy debates...
It remains true that, in general, television episodes (especially from popular shows) are more relevant to most English-speakers than villages of Japan. I don't like the double standard: trivia is trivia, regardless of whether it deals with a television show or a geographical location. (And what I'm getting at is that trivia is subjective—those villages in Japan are very significant to people in Japan and I'm not advocating mass-deleting their articles, even though so far none of the ones I have found have been better than stubs. We could make the same argument for itty-bitty towns in Ohio.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see no general problem keeping episode guides/lists. How many pages the episodes for a particular show should take up is a case-by-case thing. I agree that 1 page per episode is often to generous, and they should be consolidated. However deleting all these things as fancruft will only serve to reduce the amount of valid notable information on Wikipedia. Most of the television shows on here have been watched by well over 1 million people (keep in mind, most have been re-ran several times or been released on dvd and video). I can guarantee there are many articles about topics that have not affected 1 million people. If we delete all these episode lists and guides, we'd need to start cutting back in other areas to remain fair. And last but not least, Wikipedia is not paper. —siroχo 10:21, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I too see nothing wrong with episode lists, except that they are pretty useless without descriptions. I think the person who referred to the Simpsons template as an example somewhat missed the point. The 15 "key" episodes, I'm pretty sure, were not decided on by consensus as the best way to represent the Simpsons, but they happened to be what people decided to write articles on. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but a few people could easily write 30 more and then we've got a template too long for practical use and a poor example on the best way to handle a plethora of episode articles. However, as far as the List of The Simpsons episodes goes, I think that is the way to do it. It gives a list, but tells briefly what happens in each episode, including guest stars. Also, bear in mind, many recurring characters from the Simpsons have been deemed unworthy of their own articles, and have been merged to a single List of recurring characters from The Simpsons page. I would argue that these characters are in general more significant than any one episode, so maybe some sort of merge is the best way to handle them as well. This will be difficult with, for example, the Buffy shows that Ian pointed out, as they are already very long. Maybe they could be trimmed. Anyway, I want to reiterate that I am not proposing that we delete all these articles, I am merely considering many possibilities. You may notice I feel quite ambivalent about it. Out of curiosity I wonder how many people would object if someone were to write an article on National Geographic Vol. XXVI, issue 17, which seems to me a sort of equivalent of TV episodes. -R. fiend 14:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't object to articles on episodes of TV shows because they're pop culture, or because they're not balanced out by "serious" articles, or because I don't like the TV show, or because I think the information isn't useful (it is). I object to it because it's not the kind of information an encyclopedia collects. I object to encyclopedia articles that summarize, catalog, or review television shows for the same reason I object to encyclopedia articles that are dictionary definitions, web guides, advertisements, source texts, HOWTOs, recipes, or long and detailed tables of statistics. All of those things are informative and useful, but they all have their place, and it isn't here.

I also agree with R. fiend: writing an article about one episode of a TV show is exactly like writing an article about one issue of National Geographic (a magazine whose notability is indisputable). There may be many more issues of National Geographic than episodes of Full House, but since, as everyone keeps saying, wiki is not paper and disk space is cheap, I don't see how that would matter. The problem with writing an article about an issue of National Geographic, or an article that lists every issue of National Geographic (even assuming they had titles other than "Volume X, Issue Y") is that it's not the kind of reference material an encyclopedia collects. It's too specific, too fine and narrow a level of detail, and certainly not the sort of information that one would or should think to look for in an encyclopedia. It should be on National Geographic's Web site, or in a catalog that sells back issues of magazines, or on a National Geographic fan site. If there is anything remarkable about a certain issue or period in National Geographic's history, then we should mention it in the main article. Now rewrite the preceding sentences for episodes of Full House, issues of The Uncanny X-Men, and most other individual installments in large serial works.

I'm not particular about how we get rid of these articles—whether we make a new wiki, transfer them to somewhere off-site, wrap them up in a big archive file for whoever wants them, or just delete them outright—although I agree it would be nice if we decided on something that didn't just wipe out all that text—but I don't see the merit in the argument that we should keep unencyclopedic articles because there are a lot of them, or because they're really big. We delete (or transwiki) articles that are just recipes—wouldn't we do the same if someone uploaded a whole cookbook? Likewise, arguing that we should let people write articles on TV shows because it will encourage their interest in and skill at building other kinds of articles is, as I see it, the same as arguing that we should let people add recipes for the same reason. Encouraging an interest in building Wikipedia is laudable, but it shouldn't come at the cost of making Wikipedia something other than an encyclopedia. —Triskaideka 16:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One of the problems, though, is that "unencyclopedic" is a highly subjective term. There are plenty of television episodes that are generally accepted as "encyclopedic". Perhaps the criteria should be the same as for certain other categories (elementary schools, for example): at least some attempt needs to be made to indicate the notability of the episode. Articles that do not even claim that the episode is notable should probably be merged. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 16:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think most people agree that there are a few episodes in the history of broadcasting that warrant their own articles, but these are the exceptions, and they are few and far between ("Who Shot JR" and the "M*A*S*H finale are certainly candidates, though I imagine that information could easily be included in the parent article). But, of course, "notability" is just as subjective as "unencyclopedic". I'm sure lots of people would assert that the episode of "Star Trek: Explorbot 4000" in which we learn that Vice-commandant I'ngrti was the one who progammed Protocom-87 to kill McGillicuddy is notable because the fans had been speculating for months on who it was. I, on the other hand, would call it fancruft (i guess, truth be known I'm still not 100% sure of the exact definition) and highly deletable. (I'd also call it patent nonsense since I just made it up, but let's assume for a moment I didn't.) I think the standard has to be notability and impact outside of the show itself, which I think is common for series, but pretty rare for individual episodes. Though some good examples could convince me otherwise, if someone can supply them. -R. fiend 17:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Above, Thesteve answers "Where does it end?" with the statement "It ends when the article is finished." That, in my mind, is the flaw in the argument. It does not end when the article is finished. The article must be preserved, possibly updated and certainly protected from subtle vandalism and bias. If his whole lot of people are interested in the article and will stay interested in it, then they can be expected to continue to protect it. In fact, that's the whole purpose for the "notability" filter - answering the question "Can we reasonably expect that this article will be maintained over time or is this so specific that it will be abandoned?" Are a whole lot of people really interested enough in individual episodes of individual TV shows to keep each article current five or ten years from now? Rossami 17:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Episode 6 of season 5 of Buffy the Vampire slayer (I made that up, I have no idea if it has an article) is not going to change. There is no need to update. The only issue is "protecting" it from vandalism. Of course, in order for there to be vandals, there have to be people who are interested in the subject. In general, it seems like around here the well-meaning users outnumber the vandals, so assuming that this trend continues, it is likely that the people who will fix vandalism to Buffy episode articles will continue to be more numerous than the people who try to vandalize them (and little effort is involved—you can just bet that the people who wrote those articles have them on their watchlists). If the effort involving in protecting from vandalism were a main consideration, we wouldn't have any articles on U.S. presidential elections.[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I largely agree. But I disagree with the statement that it "ends" when the article is complete. Not if the person then goes on to write another article, and another. There is basically no limit to the number of TV episodes, as old ones are catalogued here new ones are aired. I wasn't even considering soap operas before, but now that I think of it we have many shows airing 5 times a week, year round, for 20 years or more in some cases. Imagine writing an article on each of those. And there is interest in these shows, obviously (just look at the contributions of User:TheCustomOfLife), but wikipedia is not the place to catalogue them. I think, as with other topics, limits have to be set. -R. fiend 19:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I find most of the articles on Wikipedia utterly irrelevant to my life, and to the lives of everybody I have ever met. Luckily, Wikipedia has information on topics that do interest me. I think TV shows should be treated like any other article: write about Full House until that article gets too big, then split it into articles like List of Full House episodes (with synopses) and if that gets too big because of the addition of detailed info, then make an article on the individual seasons or episodes or whatever. Tuf-Kat 20:26, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Agree - keep them if someone is willing to write on it. Who are we to say that the Buffy episode is not worthy of an article? Mark Richards 23:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for Wiki is not paper. Where else could I write an article about Captain Commando, Capcom's former mascot? Most will agree there is some point at where fancruft must be deleted, as user:Gwalla wrote under Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases:

Fancruft 
The subject is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, etc. Where the line is drawn is highly subjective and can be controversial.

And so it is. I'm currently leaning towards leaving what is, is. I still don't believe they belong - unlike the Captain, who is admittedly a smaller footnote in the history of video games, most episode articles are not entities unto themselves that can be explained without extensive fan knowledge. (This is why I am a proponent of major character articles from television shows, like Buffy Summers and Homer Simpson - because, although they could be a little cleaned up, they do not require an extensive history of fandom to understand them.) But I will not press for their deletion any longer. Mind you, if I stumble upon three-word fancruft substubs, I'll probably VfD them. However, enough people are passionate about episode articles' inclusion - with, again, excellent arguments on both sides - and consensus seems impossible at this point. Putting this to a vote will probably leave more angered than satisfied. Anything that's categorized as "fancruft" is probably best left to VfD on an individual basis; that way everyone will be happier with its result, having gone through certain channels of agreement, rather than placed under a blanket rule. The people who write the episode articles certainly mean well. The truly offensive works, like vanity and patent nonsense, are the real common enemy of Wikipedia. Ian Pugh 00:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that vanity & patent nonsense are more serious threats to Wikipedia than fancruft. The amount of available material in real topics, like, oh, history, geography, math, literature, etc., is growing only slowly, while TV, movies, top 40 bands, video games, etc., are manufactured at a breakneck pace. I can foresee a time when Wikipedia is made up largely of fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward the view that what matters is article quality and that "encyclopedic" should not mean an area of subject matter, but to an attitude toward thoroughness, completeness, and scholarship. I am personally willing to accept articles on what seem to me to be silly subjects as long as there is a vigorous coterie of editors working to insure that the articles on that subject are of high quality, comprehensive, etc. What really bothers me are stubs that will never grow; articles that should be good twenty-paragraph articles that are instead contriubted as twenty separate stubs; and articles that seem like someone's overambitious fantasy, like a piece of paper with nothing "Act One" written at the top, that do not have an obvious coterie of enthusiasts who are likely to finish the magnum opus.
Perhaps what needs to be done is to separate articles under construction from finished articles?
I don't mind fancruft as such. One of the things I love about the Web is the presence of loving, detailed treatments of subjects such as www.rickbrant.com the Rick Brant juvenile novels or [widescreen cinema processes]. These particular websites are encyclopedic, in my opinion, not because of their subject matter, but because of the quality, thoroughness, and care with which the subject matter is treated. I would personally be more than willing to have material of this quality in Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind fans, but the question for me in this, just as with everything, is to think of our users rather than our contributors. Do curious high school students and college students need an encyclopedia to find out details about "The one with everything" from "Friends?" Are there not twelve or so web sites that lovingly detail that episode, along with every other one? Aren't there Golden Oldies TV sites that put up every single "Andy Griffith Show" episode? To me, an encyclopedia ventures into popular culture when it is necessary to explain cultural references and cultural questions. Thus, when an episode causes a ripple in the pond of culture, it needs explanation and documentation. Otherwise, it simply doesn't. Encyclopedias are not archives. Individual articles on all episdoes are out. I think we have consensus on that.
So, what about lists of episodes per year? Again, we don't do it as well as others, and we don't need to do it at all. Therefore, why are we trying? We don't have uniform coverage, and we don't cover based on importance. Therefore, why are we trying? We're anime-heavy, science fiction-heavy, and, withal, young man-heavy and slashdot-heavy. However, a single article on each year of a show is not the end of the world. If "60 Minutes" has 20 years of airing, that's just 20 articles. I still don't regard that as a solution.
To me, the solution is a pop-wiki. I'm not saying that it has to be stodgy or nothing. What I'm saying is that a TV, albums, anime, and games project would make the material more available, cut down on bitter VfD fights, and allow for a uniform application of a style. Geogre 14:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I beg to differ for two reasons. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to construct a single, unified encylopedia to which a student, however serious, of any given subject might turn for information. Splintering off chunks into separate because you're not a particular fan of that aspect of popluar culture does not help that idea. My other reason is simple: today's "pop culture" is tomorrow's "classical literature". We're building for posterity: let's not skimp on the foundations or the cracks will start showing before we've even topped out. --Phil | Talk 15:19, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Strongly.
So-called "fancruft" is generally "unencyclopedic" only because a paper encyclopedia does not have the room for that kind of stuff; they have to have a very strong filter.
I don't write those kind of articles; however, I, and probably most other Wikipedians, write about our own "fancruft" - articles about obscure topics of interest only to a few. This whole "fancruft" slur seems to me to be about saying "your trivia is less important than my trivia". Is trivia about TV series, for example, really less important than, say, articles about obscure models of cars, rare species of insects, villages with 20 residents, obscure linguistic trivia, or whatever your personal pet obscurity is.
I have absolutely no objection to well-written, well-researched "fancruft".
However, there is a sense to "fancruft" that I share the frustration about; the obsession of some fans for creating tiny stubs about EVERY character, episode, device, and whatnot -- rather than fleshing out articles on one at a time, or combining them into "Characters on <series>" articles. I think we should amend our guidelines to discourage creating short useless stubs, and encourage editors to be ruthless about them. —Morven 18:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

"Where does it end?" Who cares? If the article is NPOV and accurate. If you're not interested, don't go and read it. Please don't try to delete it - why would you when others clearly are interested. If you think there is not enough information on other things relative to this, then write more! Intrigue 23:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


For Morven's comments: The truth is that today's pop culture is not tomorrow's classic. The truth is that some of today's pop culture is tomorrow's classic culture, and that's the problem. Contemporary print encyclopedias don't avoid pop culture because they don't have room. You think they don't want buyers? They know that having an article on Rush (band) in 1985 would sell books. The reason they don't is that they don't feel that they can assess what parts of contemporary culture are going to be contributory to history. They can judge near-contemporary better, just as we can, and they can judge a generation back very well. There is real justice to the charge of "Fancruft," because that is not simply interested authors (as Intrigue would say), but people who are fans. A fan and an interested person are different. An interested person places the subject in context, sees juxtapositions, is knowledgeable but objective. A fan gushes. A fan thinks that the subject is the best, the coolest, and the only. Fans don't do a very good job of writing encyclopedia articles, unless they're consciously translating into the foreign language of reference books. An interested author writes about the show, writes about the progression of the season. A fan writes about "The one with Rachel's cat" or whatever it is. The "turn the page" argument is not appropriate, either, because what has always been at stake is not server storage or database lookup time, but integrity of the project. Geogre 14:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But the point about Wikipedia is that there is the freedom to accept articles which are "gushing" and enthusiastic. Contributors to Wikipedia need to feel free to contribute to whatever they are enthusiastic about; if not, they will likely go elsewhere and possibly-valuable future participants are lost. --Phil | Talk 15:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
To Geogre, I see what you describe as "fancruft" as simply bad writing. I think specific real examples might help. Can you honestly say that articles such as Buffy Summers, or Homer Simpson are such fancruft? They look pretty reasonable, balanced and not at all frothy to me. Perhaps you can give some examples of articles you consider to be fancruft. If they do have the qualities you describe, then they should be either listed for cleanup or on VfD. But if people are willing to write balanced non-stubby articles about obscure or trivial aspects of popular culture, I say more power to them and welcome them wholeheartedly to Wikipedia. I simply do not think we can dismiss an entire and quite importance branch of culture as being nonencyclopedic. older≠wiser 15:22, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I HAVE THE SOLUTION TO THE FANCRUFT PROBLEM

The solution to all aspects of the fancruft problem is thus: a new policy like dictdef but called "cliffnotes" or something which says "while it is ok to have an article which includes a plot summary of an episode book or story, an article which only includes that, AND WHICH SEEMINGLY WILL ONLY EVER INCLUDE THAT, will be deleted (or moved to a fancruft wiki) in the same way a dictdef article (which doesn't seem like it will expand beyond that) is currently moved to wiktionary.

We MUST do something, the fancruft abounding on wikipedia is a giant hypocracy which ruins the integrity of all attempts to limit wikipedia to notable or encylopedic knowledge. Kuat Drive Yards is my star example. Yes, wikipedia is not paper, and I believe that anything that can be possibly said about a particular episode or fan fiction or whatever outside of the content of the plot itself, will automatically be notable in some way (because it would be hard to find that information if it wasn't notable). This is a key point, if you think about it clearly and formulate examples in your head, think about how sticking to this policy will either elevate an article from fancruft to notability or vfd it.

Take for example Kuat Drive Yards. This is an article about the fan-fictional (or extended universe, ie. not mentioned in the movies) description of where the Star Destroyers in Star Wars get built. Everything in the article purely summerizes plot points from some book or another (my guess multiple sources). Even one scentence outside the summary of plot, story, or character, could elevate this article to notability, such as "In contrast to the manichean morality of the other insitutions in the Star Wars universe, fans appreciate the abimgious morality of the kuat drive yards, seeing in them a metaphor for free market capitalism". I know it feels bad to mass delete a whole shitload of work (and thats what these articles are, giant, I'd venture to say they comprise 40% of wikipedia in terms of their numbers, but not in terms of their size), but this thing is a huge stumbling block for the system.



New section

Here's a new section; the old one was over the byte limit. Rename it if you can think of something appropriate.

Anyone interested in this discussion may want to monitor and perhaps vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dinner At Eight. —Triskaideka 20:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Triskaideka. Time for my rant:

I find myself disagreeing with aspects of both sides of the argument. I find comments like that of Mark Richards somewhat problematical in that he seems to say "if someone wrote about it for an encyclopedia, it’s worthy of being in an encyclopedia." This is a circular argument, and gets us nowhere. While it is true that wikipedia is not paper, this does not make it all-inclusive, and some people fall back on that catch-phrase far too readily. Yes, technically we have room for such things, at least until it becomes so prevalent that we don’t. It doesn’t mean it deserves inclusion. I’m sure someone out there would be interested in what I did today: 10/13/2004, but it doesn’t wash. Not here. Things are deleted every day for non-notability, but wikipedia is still not paper. Dpbsmith is most concerned about quality, rather than importance. There’s something to be said for that, but I’m sure someone could construct a very well-written article on why Mariska Hargitay only had one line on "Law & Order: SVU" the other night, even though she’s the star of the show. I’d even be curious to read it. But not here; that’s not what an encyclopedia does. In addition I might argue that many of these existing articles are not so well written. Ian Pugh mentioned the possibility of trimming and merging some Buffy episodes, but said he couldn’t because he didn’t know what was important. If he can’t tell what’s important in an article then it’s not well written. If you have to be a fan to really "get" the article, then it is fancruft.

Sorry but I have to disagree: I would have no clue whether or where to start trimming an article on tensor analysis but that's because my mathematical skills aren't up to it. Do I therefore have the right to nominate such an article for deletion simply because I can't understand it? --Phil | Talk 08:25, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

We have loads (and I mean loads) of articles that sources like Brittanica would never have, and that’s a real strength for wikipedia. But it can also be a weakness. One may ask "why doesn’t Encyclopedia Britannica have an article on Pops Freshenmeyer?" (someone merely mentioned on one episode of the Simpsons), but the answer is obvious: because it would be utterly stupid for them to. The same goes for us. We, however, at least have a mention of him, but within a larger article, where he belongs. There is a lot of stuff that could be mentioned in some form, but shouldn’t have an article unto itself. Some people would probably call me a "deletionist", but I am often against deleting accurate information, even in some of these cases. I am, however, sometimes pretty big on trimming and merging. There have been numerous times when wikipedia has benefited from losing some information. Take a look at the page history of 28 Days Later. Someone, under the guise of a "synopsis", had written a treatment-length summary of every scene in the movie. They got so bogged down in details they couldn’t even be bothered to finish it. Now it’s just a couple short paragraphs, which is what it needs. We’re not “Cliff’s Notes for Films”. I agree with what Morven says about combining articles. Sometimes that means losing information that goes into too much detail. No one would argue that Nixon doesn’t deserve an article, but that doesn’t mean we have to summarize his actions every day he was in office. Some fancruft goes into detail that I would just about consider comparable. Yes, there is more interest in some of this fancruft than there is in many species of insect, but we don’t have articles on every species of insect. There’s too many, and there are too many TV episodes.

Now, I also have to disagree with some of Geogre’s comments. Clearly wikipdeia is going to venture into popular culture. It’s a very thin line as it is. Other encyclopedias can’t, partially because they are paper, but we have the freedom to lower the bar for what should be included, but that doesn’t mean we dig a hole and bury it. Plenty of things in pop culture have an impact on higher culture, and affect people every day. Yes, other sites will do a better job than us, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon areas because we will not be the definitive source. But he’s right: wikipedia is not an archive. Things are here because they are notable. What notability is is certainly highly debatable. “Individual articles on all episodes are out. I think we have consensus on that.” Dozens of articles attest to the contrary. That’s why we are having this discussion. I’m completely with Geogre when he says we should think more about users than contributors. Keeping bad articles because it will encourage their authors to write more is not necessarily a good idea. I’m not so sure that “today's Pokemon and Buffy contributors are our future leaders and thinkers.” Perhaps, but they are more likely tomorrow’s Comic Book Guy.

Now to “The whole idea of Wikipedia is to construct a single, unified encylopedia to which a student, however serious, of any given subject might turn for information.” That’s overstating it a bit. Any subject? What about webguides, or recipes, or minutes of the Glubbville Bridge Club’s last bi-monthly meeting, or “Who’s who in American Middle Schools”? Clearly not, and I think we at least have a consensus on that. And so I’d like to also think we wouldn’t cater to people who need to know exactly what happened in the 8th episode of the 3rd season of WKRP in Cincinnati. Or what was written about in the 28th issue of the Paris Review. Certain things are best left to the rest of the web. Wikipedia is not going to repeat all the information that is currently available, even though wikipedia is not paper. I myself like to use wikipedia as a one-stop shopping place for all the information I’m looking for, but if I need to know who the gaffer was in “Revenge of the Cheerleaders” I’m going to IMDB. Nothing wrong with that, and in this case George is right: we shouldn’t try to be IMDB; they are better at this sort of thing. Always will be.

Not entirely the point: the idea is that there would be an article in Wikipedia which would direct you to the IMDb for your detailed analysis. There's little point in duplicating the entire content of IMDb here, but we do need just enough: listing the cast of a film enables links to those actors and thence to other films in which they appeared. Bear in mind that part of the Wikipedia project is the intended publication on self-contained DVD for those parts of the world where Internet access is restricted and/or slow: you need at least the skeletal information. --Phil | Talk 08:25, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

So here’s my proposal (finally). I basically stated it before:

  • Articles on TV series (any series, however minor or stupid): fine
  • List of episodes in such series: fine, even though they are often pretty useless
  • Articles on major characters from shows: Best merged into a “characters” article, but if it gets too big they can get their own, if they meet a higher level of notability than most.
  • Articles on individual shows: No. summarize them in a couple sentences on the episodes list page. That’s enough information. Any more information is the equivalent of writing about Nixon’s meeting with his Secretary of Agriculture on the morning of March 13, 1971. Rare exceptions to this can be made. Rare exceptions.
Fair enough, but is there really' so much point in running around deleting reasonably-written articles on subjects you personally don't care for when you could be writing your own articles on stuff you do care for and righting the balance in your favour? --Phil | Talk 08:25, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
There is certainly a point in working to establish Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia. —Triskaideka 17:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's not so much about subjects we "personally don't care for" - I just VfD'ed for Petoria, which, beyond being stolen almost directly from a country template for Lebanon, is still fancruft, and even if it were cleaned up for the purposes of a description of how the "country" came to be in the series, it would have to be a description of the occurrences of the episode, and I would still press for deletion. I loved "E Peterbus Unum" - I think it may very well be the best episode of Family Guy - but that doesn't qualify it for an article; the series as a whole has cultural impact - but not the episodes have it, in and of themselves. Same thing with minor characters. Recently Ndnd was up for deletion and was instead redirected to Omicronian, which, frankly, also needs to be deleted. Futurama is my favorite television series, the only one for which I've ever bought the entire DVD sets. I know more about the minutiae of that series than most - but it does not belong here. I understand the Futurama stuff, but who else will, besides the fans? Same thing goes for any other series. Ian Pugh 20:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long. And I thank those who actually read the entire thing. -R. fiend 04:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is something I would support. However, can this be achieved? This issue, along with concerns of a flame war, is why I gave up on this topic to move onto other things. Although the masses may agree (or perhaps contain some consensus on the subject), this also requires some effort on the part of the fans that created this stuff, in order to cut it down and organize it. They know more, they can clip this stuff down... will this be easier to accomplish? My concern is that any attempt on our part to do this will be met with disdain, and some defiance in the way of recreating pages and reverting edits, leaving more for us to clean up.

And thank you for sticking with this issue, even when I myself had given up on it. Ian Pugh 01:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that ... whole book on the subject, R. fiend. I am very much in favor of the conclusions you reach. —Morven 05:02, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
I am still of the opinion that contributors to Wikipedia should be encouraged to improve, and a new, enthusiastic contributor having their articles derided as fancruft is hardly likely to accomplish this goal. --Phil | Talk 08:25, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
While I understand your point I largely disagree. Bad articles or articles that don't warrant inclusion should be treated the same regardless of who wrote them. I'm all for being diplomatic, but that doesn't mean we have to give in. If someone writes an article on Methods of rolling for ability scores in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, sees it tagged for deletion, gets offended, and never contributes again it's probably no great loss to us. Keeping 100 unsalvageable articles just on the hopes that article #101 will be good is hardly beneficial. Besides, if wikipedia has taught me one thing its that for any fan that departs 5 will take his place. Like Geogre, I tend to be more concerned about users than contributors. As for the point about mathematical articles and the like, I think your point is a very valid one. I certainly would often like such articles to be explained more in layman's terms. Some do a good job at that, others don't. Articles which can only really be understood on any level by someone with an advanced degree in mathematics probably don't really belong in wikipedia, but on a specialized site for higher math. A key difference is that while there may be a handful of such articles here, and the potential for some others, we have the potential for more than 300,000 TV episodes (by a conservative estimate). That's roughly the current size of wikipedia. I just think we should have some policy in place before we start earnestly heading in that direction. If someone had tried to have a discussion on pokemon while the articles were just starting to be written we might have a more sane policy on them (Maybe someone tried to, I don't know; I wasn't here), rather than the "anything goes" system currently in place (and by that I don't mean that we should have no articles on pokemon). And I think you have the right idea regarding my statements on IMDB. I never meant to suggest we shouldn't have an article on Revenge of the Cheerleaders (do we? I guess I'll find out when I finish this. If not maybe I'll write one). I think the approach we take to movies (in general) is great (and that approach does not include listing who the gaffer or key grip was). But TV episodes are not movies, and should not be treated as such (made for TV movies are a different story). As a final note, I do write articles on things I care about (and some things I don't care all that much about, but I feel deserve inclusion), and will continue to. That doesn't mean I can't address other issues as well. -R. fiend 19:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't had the chance to read all comments on this issue yet, so I apologize if I end up repeating arguments already made. One time in a VfD on a vanity something-or-other, the article's author asked why we couldn't have an article on his personal religion, I think, that he claimed had affected maybe a hundred people, when we had articles on every ship in the Navy and every Pokemon (supposedly). My answer was that while an individual ship in the Navy may not have had a whole hell of a lot of impact beyond the people who served on it, the fact is that the Navy itself and military ships in general are such notable subjects that even what might be considered more trivial about the topic is worthy of inclusion—notability by association, perhaps. The same may be even truer of pop culture detritus such as Pokemon—considering the millions of children worldwide who have loved Pokemon and can actually tell the generic little monsters apart, there is a level of notability imputed to even trivial Pokemon subjects. The fact is that pop culture has impact upon millions. Aside from local cable public access and the like, I don't think there have been any nonnotable television shows. Crap, sure, but not nonnotable. We can't be cultural snobs and turn up our nose at whatever we think is just pandering to ephemeral tastes, for the very reason given above in favor of deletion—we have no idea what may be historically important. I would say that even so-called trivial pop culture has historical value, because every little bit helps to flesh out an understanding of the time. Historians attempting to understand the Elizabethan age don't just stop with Shakespeare. This doesn't necessarily mean that every bit of detail deserves article-level attention. I'm sure most Pokemon don't deserve more than a one-line mention in a list, just as most episodes of most TV shows don't deserve more than a brief synopsis in a list as well. But if a complete and quality article can be written on an individual episode of even a crappy TV show like Full House, I say keep it. Distaste for the subject matter should not prevent us from accepting quality content from someone willing and able to write it. Pop culture is a proper topic for wikipedia. And if a quality independent article can't be written, then it should be trimmed down and merged. But not deleted. Postdlf 01:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I largely agree. Television shows are worthy of inclusion, but, as you said, individual episodes don't deserve more than a brief synopsis in a list. That's what I'm trying to accomplish. Where I disagree is where you say that if a full article can be written about an episode, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be. Well, you can write a full article on just about any show. Summing up the plot of just about any half hour show can take 2 solid paragraphs. So that's sort of like saying "episodes don't deserve their own articles, but an exception can be made for each and every episode". Not really a firm answer. My point is that TV series as a whole can have a true impact on someone's life, but it's very rare that one single episode out of 200 or whatever actually does. I'm a fan of trimming and merging, and I think lists are the way to go. -R. fiend 19:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce size of VfD

I have proposed on Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion (it's a bad name, but I was pressed for time when I wrote it) something that will cut down the size of VfD by listing "dubious" articles that aren't clear speedys nor clear VfDs on a separate page (for more, see the page). Comments appreciated (preferably on its talk page). Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Several hundred articles each day

I downloaded the Wikipedia:Deletion log as html, searched for 22 Oct, and got (exactly!) 500 matches. So I changed the phrase from "In the normal operations of Wikipedia, about 100 articles are deleted each day" to "several hundred articles are deleted each day." The phrase "about 100" was added by Kingturtle, circa December, 2003. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the number of articles created per day has approximated doubled since then (see stats) whereas the number of deletions has gone up five-fold. Even allowing for some error in the Kingturtle's original estimate and some variance in your count from day-to-day, this is strong statistical evidence that en.WP has become dramatically more deletionist since the end of last year. Pcb21| Pete 17:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or it may indicate that WP's increased visibility has also increased the amount of vandalism (and patent nonsense/vanity articles) which in turn accounts for the increase in deletions. Additional analysis would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn from raw data. older≠wiser 18:50, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
More particularly the increased visibility would have to have increased the proportion of vandalism to good new content. Pcb21| Pete 19:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A lot of it is not vandalism, I think. Often it's innocent click-on-a-red-link-and-stare-blankly-at-an-edit-box-before-typing-something syndrome. In other words, I think our browser-to-editor ratio is up. As a college student I've noticed familiarity with Wikipedia among my peers skyrocket in the last year, but they're rarely contributers. Cool Hand Luke 08:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What I have also noticed, as a relatively new contributor, is that the number of topics that 1-legitimately deserve articles and 2-do not already have articles is fairly low. By looking at non-English Wikipedias, it's easy to see that in earlier days it would have been quite easy to come and start a new article that legitimately needed to be included. Today, it seems to me that in the English Wikipedia, in the majority of cases it is preferable to edit an existing article. We do see an awful lot of merge-and-redirects on VFD these days. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposals for deletion policy

I'd like to put forward a handful of suggestions and thoughts for consideration:

  1. Authors and editors should be emailed as soon as their article is flagged for deletion. I'm sure most people use WP in waves - they spend a few weeks enthusiastically contributing and then spend a few months on a WikiHoliday. It will come as a great shock to these guys if they return from the WikiHoliday to find their beloved page deleted without them having had a chance to modify it. Not only is this rude (so you run the risk of alienating users) but it's also unproductive. I'm sure many of the pages that have been deleted over the years could have been re-written to add usable content to WP.
  2. I've never understood why WikiPedia doesn't allow how-tos. All knowledge tells us how to 'do' something (even if that's "how to think"). The main advantage of being Human is that we can share knowledge of how to make the world work for us. Language is primarily a system for communicating "how-tos". Therefore the distinction between "encyclopaedic" and "how-to" is one of formatting and not of content. And formatting can be changed without the need for deletion. When I first heard of WikiPedia I imagined it to be a central repository for all information. The information would be layered - the top layers would be general overviews and the bottom layers would be detailed and technical. If I woke up one morning and decided "I want to be a formula one racing engineer" then I could, if I had the time, learn everything there was to know about F1 engineering from WikiPedia. I'd start with the simple articles on mechanical construction, mathematics for engineers etc and slowly work my way up to the more advanced topics. (Perhaps WikiBooks will perform this fuction one day - but right now WB pales in comparison to WP.) But it's now clear to me that many of those with loud voices in the WikiPedia community are keen to keep WP on its knees. Some people want WikiPedia to be like a regular encyclopaedia. This frustrates me hugely - it's blindingly obvious that WikiPedia can be so much more than a regular encyclopaedia. It can, literally, revolutionalise learning. It could become an exhaustive documentation of all knowledge. Why are people deliberately tying WP's hands behind its back by deleting valuable information and formulating arbitrary rules for what WP shouldn't cover based on encyclopaedias of the past? If WP is gaining too many articles then increase the intelligence of the search facility, don't delete articles. Instead of spending time finding articles to delete, go and read up on expert systems. WP could be the ultimate Expert System. Stop spitting in the face of your own creation and instead help it become the most important site on the 'net.
  3. Surely all decisions to delete should be based on one criterion and one criterion only: will deleting this article increase WikiPedia's signal to noise ratio? Don't delete it because it doesn't conform to some wholly arbitrary rules such as "articles must not have jokes" or "articles must not be how-tos". The value of WP is in its information content. Why waste effort attempting to homogenise millions of articles into one bland house style? We are heterogeneous. Accept this and move on.
  4. This 'voting' system is inherently unfair. The people who vote will be the ones who don't like the target article... those who do like the article wont be motivated to find the "Votes for deletion" page. This is basic statistics - you always have to be aware of slanted sample distributions. Wouldn't it be more democratic to base these "votes for deletion" on page hits? Or perhaps every article could have a quick and simple voting poll something along the lines of "please indicate how informative you found this article on a scale of 1 to 5" (this would only work if you forced every reader to vote). You're in serious danger of coming across like you're running some tedious school club rather than a revolution in knowledge management. You have to remember that WP needs contributors - by deleting hundreds of pages each day you're also pissing off hundreds of people each day. dan_aka_jack 19:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I support your suggestion in #1 (though I hope it would be optional). I disagree with the rest.
You write, "When I first heard of WikiPedia I imagined it to be a central repository for all information." This is an unfortunately common misconception that I find very frustrating. Consider that, in fact, we already have a central repository for all information. It's called the Internet, and it has serious problems with quality control and user friendliness. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects attempt, among other things, to do a much better job of categorizing information than just throwing it all together. —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But the Internet can't be modified by readers. WikiPedia will look after its own quality control if setup correctly - the readers will modify or vote against poor pages (see my suggestions below). So why shouldn't we attempt to give WP an infinite scope? Infinite scope doesn't necessary mean low quality. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Internet can be modified by readers, just not as directly. Writing and promoting your own Web site, and e-mailing the authors of sites that contain incorrect information, is cheap and easy.
Infinite scope may or may not mean low quality, but I reiterate my point that Wikipedia need not have, was never intended to have, and would not necessarily benefit from an infinite scope. Wikipedia was created with the intention of building an open-source encyclopedia. I think that's a fine goal, and that's what I'm here to help with; I personally am not interested in building a reference source of unlimited scope, and I still don't see any reason that I and everyone else who came here to build an encyclopedia should suddenly be required to build an unlimited reference source instead, when there's no technological barrier to doing both. Below, you write that you want to expand the scope of Wikipedia, rather than starting a new project, in order to take advantage of Wikipedia's momentum. But consider that changing the scope of Wikipedia would likely hurt its momentum. I, and doubtless many others, would stop contributing, and it would take some time before people who had learned to expect and not expect certain things from Wikipedia found out about the changes. Below, you write that "WP is pulling hard at the leash and should be allowed to run free." I don't think it's Wikipedia pulling at the leash at all, but rather a number of users—most of them occasional—who either don't understand what an encyclopedia is, or don't share Wikipedia's vision of creating one.
One of the hallmarks of the open source philosophy is the right to fork. As long as you are willing to use the GFDL, you are perfectly welcome to copy the entirety of the current (and future!) contents of Wikipedia and all other Wikimedia projects to your own server; you need not start your new project from scratch. As for getting your new system the same level of publicity and popularity that Wikipedia currently enjoys, well, I'm sure it would take a few years, but if the Wikimedia founders could do it, there's no reason anyone else can't.
Are you familiar with Everything2? I'm not terribly, myself, but from what I know, it might be a little closer to what you have in mind than Wikipedia is. —Triskaideka 17:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. No, I wasn't aware of EveryThing2 - it does look interesting. OK - I'll drop my proposal that WP should have infinite scope. But see my comments below about ho-tos and layering... [User:dan_aka_jack|dan_aka_jack]] 19:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Part of that undertaking is to make a place for everything and keep everything in its place. If you think that one of those places, for example Wikibooks, "pales in comparison" to another (and I certainly wouldn't argue that point), the solution is not to jam everything that belongs in the first place into the second, but rather to help improve the first. —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I hope to be able to contribute more to WikiBooks. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, the obvious problem with the suggestion that Wikipedia should be something other than an encyclopedia, for example an Expert System or a repository for arbitrary information, is that the whole point of Wikipedia is to build something that is an encyclopedia. Expert Systems are fine things, and if you'd like to contribute to one, then by all means do so, or start your own if you like (wiki software, like many other Web development tools, is free for the taking). Wikipedia is as far as I know the only open-source encyclopedia in the world, and I don't really see a compelling arguement for suddenly changing it to be something other than that. Perhaps a repository such as you describe would be a useful thing for the world to have—that's well and good. But why should it take the place of this encyclopedia we're building? —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting that we replace WikiPedia. I think WikiPedia is an awesome thing and I enthuse about it to everyone I meet. I also take your point that it's called Wikipedia and not GlobalExpertSystem (or something of that ilk). But my feeling is that WikiPedia has far more momentum and publicity than any knowledge-management system the world has ever seen. Thus it can become an expert system with unlimited scope and I think it's arbitrary to limit WP just because it was born with a scope-limited name. Sure, I could go off and start something myself - but I'd have a one in a billion chance of getting as much attention as WikiPedia. People want to contribute to WikiPedia . I see that as a challenge for WikiPedia's search and categorisation systems, not a critisism of the people who want to contribute. Don't throw away any information - instead teach WP how to search and categorise it. I'm sure there are millions of AI researchers round the world who would love to collaborate with the mediawiki developers if they were invited.
I really do think that WP is a great thing. Please don't get me wrong - I don't want to destroy what's already been done. But I feel that WP is pulling hard at the leash and should be allowed to run free. I'm not suggesting that people should be able to write garbage but I certainly think WP should, for example, allow how-tos. The challenge then would be to modify WP's search engine so it had the intelligence to pull out relevant articles. A very simple suggestion would be to have three levels of expertise for each article - overview, intermediate and expert. When you run a search you'd select which level of article you're looking for. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You write, "Surely all decisions to delete should be based on one criterion and one criterion only: will deleting this article increase WikiPedia's signal to noise ratio?" In fact, all decisions are based on that criterion. However, others obviously have different ideas about what constitutes "signal" and "noise" in an encyclopedia. —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Point taken. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I see a number of problems with your suggestions that we decide whether to keep pages based on how often people visit them... —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the vote-by-page-hits ideas was a dud. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
...or how useful they say they found them. It's too open to abuse from people trying to "game the system", for one thing. —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
True, it would be open to abuse. But if you implement IP logging combined with cookies (maybe you do already?) then you'll reduce the chances of abuse to below the current levels. Maybe I should re-phrase that: I don't think the current system is abused as such - but I don't think it's fair. The main reason for this is because the guys who are voting for deletion are, by and large, not the same people who would naturally be interested in reading the article. So they probably delete more enthusiastically than is fair. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More importantly, it implies that an encyclopedia is basically a big book of things people want to read, which is assuredly not the case. Much information of interest does not belong in an encyclopedia, and much information that does belong in an encyclopedia would be considered boring by many. Besides, how would we decide how unpopular is too unpopular? As soon as we delete the least popular article, then the second-least popular gets a promotion. —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To reply to your points one by one. "Encyclopedias aren't big books full of articles that people want to read (paraphrase)" agreed.
"Much information of interest does not belong in an encyclopedia" true for a print encylopedia (because of printing costs) and true of WikiPedia with its current search engine. But not true of the WikiPedia I'm imagining which would have a search engine with a significant amount of AI ported from Expert Systems. This search engine would be a domain-unlimited hybrid of Google, WikiPedia and traditional (and hence domain-limited) expert systems.
"Besides, how would we decide how unpopular is too unpopular?" I suggest you look at the ratio of good votes to bad votes for each page, not the absolute numbers of votes. You then set a threshold of, say, 4bad:1good (you'd have to experiment to find a decent threshold). When this threshold is crossed the author is emailed and told that (s)he has 1 month to improve the page (as assessed by ratings) or the page will be deleted. Perhaps the author would also be sent a compilation of comments and suggestions left by readers. This saves you guys loads of time and it makes the process more democratic and more statistically sound. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I think that experience contradicts your perception of how the voting process here works. In fact, people are much more likely to be inspired to vote when they want to save an article than when they want to delete it. We see "sockpuppets" and anonymous users trying to keep articles all the time—but how often does anyone try to stuff the ballot box with delete votes? —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I take your point about people getting upset—and understandably so!—when they discover that an article they spent time and effort on has been deleted. I am generally in favor of wording or policy changes to soften this blow, or better yet, help people avoid creating bad articles in the first place. But any effort to appease those people that has the side effect of lessening Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopdia is, I believe, unacceptable. —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I take issue with your last point. "These people" are not inherently bad at writing. They might have written one or two duds but that doesn't mean that they'll be writing duds for the rest of their lives. Don't try to rid WP of "these people" - instead give them pointers to improve their writing. And, also, a vote-based deletion system would cause less offence than the current system. The current system is far to personal, subjective and cliquey (yes, nothing is truley objective... but we're talking about degrees of subjectivity here). dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed that "these people" are not inherently bad at writing, that they may become (or perhaps already are) valuable contributors, and that we should not take the attitude that Wikipedia must be rid of them. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly that tolerating the damage caused to Wikipedia's integrity, credibility, and signal:noise ratio caused by improper (for whatever reason) articles, just to encourage their authors, who may or may not at some unspecified date make some contributions that are valuable, is out of the question—not least because as soon as we tolerate one improper article, people will start pointing to it as precedent for any number of similarly improper articles. I will make bold to say that, important as contributors are, integrity, credibility, and signal are even more important: if nobody feels they can rely on Wikipedia, then it hardly matters whether anyone contributes to it.
Agreed dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Regarding your statement that "a vote-based deletion system would cause less offence than the current system," I'm not sure I understand—the current deletion system is vote-based. In theory, people base their votes on whether article subjects meet a variety of community-decided standards. I realize that that model doesn't work quite as well as one would like, but that's democracy for you. —Triskaideka 17:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry - I meant a "vote-based system whereby all readers are required to vote on each page" would be less offensive. Yes, the current system does kind of employ votes - but I maintain my point that they're not representative votes. It would be more democratic to poll every reader dan_aka_jack 19:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As for the question of articles being deleted when they could have been improved instead: while I realize that this unfortunately does happen, remember that, in theory, articles are only supposed to be deleted when no amount of improvement could make them encyclopedic. Thus, if a user were to miss the chance to rewrite their pet article before it got deleted, one hopes that it would be no big deal because the result would have been the same regardless. —Triskaideka 21:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree that misinformation should be deleted. But anything with useful and accurate content should be kept. The problem then becomes: how do I improve the search engine to use this information?
The assertion that "anything with useful and accurate content should be kept" is not an uncommon one, but it's one with which I disagree very strongly. Ideally, anything with useful and accurate content should be moved to the appropriate Wikimedia project. But if there is no appropriate Wikimedia project, we should either make one, or delete the content. —Triskaideka 17:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here's an analogy: Imagine you make a video in a dark room of an object which is only slightly brighter than the background. Your job is to write an algorithm to find the object. A simple thresholding algorithm won't work because it'll pick up lots of false-possitive pixels. So instead you tell your algorithm roughtly what your object looks like - then the algorithm looks for pixels in a given configuration. So, given the same noisy data-set, the first algorithm has a much poorer signal to noise ratio than the second algorithm. They're both using the same data but the second algorithm affectively hides the noise without you having to go in and manually delete the noise.
The present WP search engine is like a simple threshold algorithm - it churns through the dataset asking "does this article contain the target word". But if the search engine used a bit of AI then you could effectively increase the signal to noise without having to manually prune the data itself. And, as you've already stated, different people have different views on what constitutes "noise". So the simple answer (and the democratic answer) is to give the reader the tools to filter out what he or she believes to be noise. dan_aka_jack 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you can do this for Wikipedia, why not do it for the entire Internet, which encompasses not only Wikipedia but also a enormous range of facts and opinion that Wikipedia does not include? Or, if that project is too ambitious, what about focusing on a certain selection of informational sites—the Wikimedia projects, Everything2, FAQs.org, FAQTs.com, etc. —Triskaideka 17:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Round 2

Thank you, Triskaideka, for all your very thoughtful feedback. I'd like to propose a "2nd draft" of my first proposal, taking into consideration Triskaideka's responses to my original post:
  1. Users should be emailed when their page is flagged for deletion (opt-in)
  2. The MediaWiki deveopers should actively seek out AI researchers to add intelligence to the WP search engine. I'm sure some funding could be found for a handful of PhD students. (However, Triskaideka has pursuaded me that WP is not an infinite-scope knowledge repository.)
  3. A reader-poll for each page should be tested and evaluated. I believe this system would save everyone time and would make the process of choosing pages for deletion more democratic. This system was detailed above, but I'll copy out here:"I suggest you look at the ratio of good votes to bad votes for each page, not the absolute numbers of votes. You then set a threshold of, say, 4bad:1good (you'd have to experiment to find a decent threshold). When this threshold is crossed the author is emailed and told that (s)he has 1 month to improve the page (as assessed by ratings) or the page will be deleted. Perhaps the author would also be sent a compilation of comments and suggestions left by readers. This saves you guys loads of time and it makes the process more democratic and more statistically sound."
  4. There should be some attempt made to layer the knowledge stored in WP. The top layer would contain broad, encyclopaedic overviews, the middle layer would be more technical and the bottom layer would be highly techinical (and, in places where it's relevant, how-tos should be allowed at this bottom layer). dan_aka_jack 19:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Starting a new section to avoid the byte limit.)

I am more in agreement with the new suggestions, but I think there are still a few bugs to be worked out. A few general questions:

  1. Who is the "author" of a page? Authorship is a slippery concept on Wikipedia. Right now the computer doesn't really have any way of distinguishing between someone who adds genuine substance to an article, and someone who just fixes the punctuation. Is an author anyone who has contributed to the article? Anyone who has it on their watchlist? Just the first contributor, even if the article has been substantially changed since then? What if the "author" is an anonymous user?
    • And, anticipating the suggestion that we write code to allow the computer to determine what is a "substantial change"—can this really be done? Right now it thinks it's a big deal if you reverse the order of a couple of paragraphs. Surely there's a lot of room for improvement in the AI, but wouldn't we really have to write an AI that could, on some level, comprehend the language in order for it to effectively judge the magnitude of a change? And wouldn't vandals blanking a page appear to be a major change?
  2. Wouldn't this proposal result in the deletion of articles on valid encyclopedia material if a large number of people didn't like the current method of description? Currently we'd send such articles to Cleanup or Pages needing attention (sometimes after a VfD). The ability to rewrite bad articles on good topics is one of Wikipedia's strengths.
  3. Perhaps more to the point: if today I rate an article poorly, and tomorrow someone adds a lot of great new material and cleans up the formatting, how much weight is my vote given? Surely the votes of users who left the site long ago can't be allowed to sit around and bring down the average of articles that have eventually become quite good—so let's suppose they're discounted a bit. Then the next day you rate the article well, and the day after, someone adds a comma but forgets to mark the "minor edit" box. The article is essentially unchanged since your vote, but now your vote is discounted. Further, suppose I renew my low rating, but some troll immediately makes an edit in order to discount my vote. How do we resolve this problem?
  4. Aren't how-tos inherently in conflict with the ideal of maintaining a neutral point of view? If there's more than one way to do a thing, how do we know which one to accept? We could accept them all, but that's a bit of a strange situation, as redundancy is otherwise something we try to avoid. And if we did accept them all, how would the reader sort through them? (And I'm still inclined to say that how-tos belong on Wikibooks.) —Triskaideka
Hi. Sorry for my late reply. I'll respond to your points using your numbering system:
  • 1. AUTHORSHIP. Sure, I understand that authorship is a tricky concept in Wikipedia. I suppose the easiest thing would be to email the original author and the editors who have made large edits. There's little we can do about people who forget to tick the "minor change" box.
  • 3. DO VOTES COUNT AFTER EDITING. Yes, this is a serious problem. I don't have a good answer for you. The best I can do is suggest
  • 4. I don't think how-tos are inherently in conflict with NPOV. But, you're right, they are often a one-sided account of how best to do something. dan_aka_jack 15:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, on to...

Round 3!

Here's a new set of proposals (the proposals in italics havne't been changed since round 2):

  1. Users should be emailed when their page is flagged for deletion (opt-in)
  2. The MediaWiki deveopers should actively seek out AI researchers to add intelligence to the WP search engine.
  3. A reader-poll for each page should added to all pages and the statistics should be considered by the guys who are involved in voting for deletion. Triskaideka has proved that a fully automated VfD system would be dangerous.
  4. There should be some attempt made to layer the knowledge stored in WP. dan_aka_jack 15:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Categorized Deletion

I'd like to draw people's attention to the proposed Wikipedia:Categorized Deletion, which has been up for a while, but which probably hasn't received as much talk because, unlike Wikipedia:Managed Deletion and Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion, it hasn't yet been listed on this page. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:20, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools

I've noticed that recently, high schools (and similar articles) have been occupying a large number of spots on WP:VFD, so to make it easy to see them, I've created the article Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools. Note that this article is not what I proposed under Wikipedia:Categorized Deletion, as this WP:VFD/HS merely lists the high school deletion pages that appear on VFD. My hope is that this page will allow Wikipedian editors concerned about the deletion of high school articles to examine those debates collectively and to be able to reach some sort of general consensus on the deletion/keeping of high school articles, as we currently have no such consensus. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:27, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Also, check out the new policy proposal I've begun at Wikipedia:School articles needing evaluation —siroχo 00:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect policy

HistoryBuffEr, I did not add this paragraph for the purpose of any particular VfD — I actually added it a week before it started. If you think this is not a good policy in general, please bring your reservations to the talk. Gadykozma 15:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The possibility of redirecting an article rather than deleting it comes up frequently, so it would probably be good to discuss it. However, I think the paragraph added might be a little too categorical, as if this is a hard-and-fast rule for resolving VfD nominations. In theory, everything we do should be oriented towards consensus, not majority decisions. Still, you might mention that when many people spontaneously support an option that wasn't originally on the menu (redirect instead of the basic keep/delete), this is a fairly persuasive argument in favor of that option. --Michael Snow 19:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael, would you care to suggest a formulation? I would really prefer not to do it just when I myself am party to a VfD of this type. Gadykozma 20:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gadykozma: Aside from the fact that most actions in WP require consensus and that your opinion is thus a minority opinion, just what made you think you can simply add your personal intepretations to a long settled and official policy? I typed in Gadykozma named WikiGod but WP said "no such article".
HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
The Wikipedia principle of consensus is intentionally in dynamic tension with the Wikipedia principle that every user should be bold. No page is ever considered "finished" - not even policy pages. Gadykozma, as noted on the be bold page, controversial and well-established pages deserve greater discussion and consensus-building before making significant changes. Policy pages generally fall into that category. Next time, please consider marking your recommendation more clearly as "proposed" until there's been more time for discussion. HistoryBuffEr, your concerns are noted. Your tone, however, is doing your cause more harm than good. I, too, am interpreting it as a personal attack unrelated to the merits of the discussion. Rossami 19:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whatever happened to everyone's sense of humor here? HistoryBuffEr 20:11, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
Everybody's sense of humour is just fine, but your history of attacking those with whom you disagree is well-known. Jayjg 21:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that if most people think an article should be redirected, we ought to make it into a redirect. However, if there is no consensus on this, other editors should have no particular binding obligation to abide by this rule. If there is consensus on redirect, any de-redirected articles should be turned back into a redirect, similar to how we can delete articles previously VfD'd. To be fair, we should also consider straight delete votes when determining if consensus exists for a binding redirect. If deletes plus redirects are a consensus we should stubbornly keep the article a redirect. Otherwise, the VfD vote should just be a recomendation to editors. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Luke. If over half of the votes are for redirect, then an article survives VfD in the sense that there was no consensus to delete. However, if deletes plus redirects equals consensus then the consensus is that the article should not survive in its current form, either. I dislike instruction creep, but a binding redirect is only likely to be an issue in cases where so much effort has gone into making a decision that the decision should be enforceable by policy. Normally, anyone can create a redirect or undo one. I can imagine hotly contested cases where the community consensus is that an article title should survive as a redirect, but the current article should not remain. In those cases having a little bit of instruction creep to fall back on could save a lot of hassle for a lot of people. SWAdair | Talk 09:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved from main page

Redirect decisions

Sometimes a page will be brought to VfD but the majority will vote that it will be redirected. Redirect does not require a rough consensus — a regular majority is enough to apply this decision. In this case the administrator who reviews the discussion can perform the redirect immediately. Any merge of the contents can be done after the page has become a redirect.

An administrator may protect such a redirect against users un-redirecting the page if the un-redirection happens soon after the VfD is over, but only if the opinion to redirect plus opinion to delete has consensus. Non-consensus VfD majorities to redirect constitute only a suggestion for editors, and such votes have no binding power.

Since this is a relatively new addition and is causing controversy, I moved this so that the above can be edited and refined before being placed back in. It is currently the center of an edit war, and to avoid that we should discuss its inclusion here. So everyone knows, I have no strong feelings either way, but the edit warring can't continue. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

OK. I was wondering if there's broader support to the revision I made. I don't believe a simple majority should suffice to protect a redirect. That's essentually deletion without consensus. Protection should certainly be an option in my view, but only with consensus. Without consensus, VfD has no binding say on the article. An editor can turn it into a redirect, and even cite the majority VfD opinion on the talk page, but other editors should be free to turn it back into an article—within the normal bounds of civility, ideally. Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think you refer only to the 2nd paragraph int he secion. Permanent protection isn't a good option coming out of a VFD vote. If there is a problem, protection should be requested at WP:RFPP, just like any other page. I don't think we need any special mention here. -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
I might agree with removing any reference to protection, but those supporting the policy included it, so I thought it needed to be qualified. I simply don't think anything less than consensus should justify protecting a redirect. Normal 3-revert edit war protection (with talk page resolution) could apply, but not an attempt to protect a redirect just because a simply majority on VfD thought it was a good idea. Cool Hand Luke 08:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was hoping to abstain until this VfD closed but in the meantime another VfD of the same type popped, so I guess I'll just have to move on. For me the most important point is the one raised by Luke and SWAdair, that is that (at least in certain circumstances) a delete vote should be counted automatically towards redirect. I would like to know how much support does this view have, and if people think it needs to be qualified, and how. Gady 17:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This (potential) addition needs a broad discussion and support. Official Wikipedia policy should not be hastily changed based on a handful of opinions expressed within a couple of days here. Not to mention that the only supporters are a couple of users apparently trying to push through this change so they can have their way on 2 current VfDs. HistoryBuffEr 18:54, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

More importantly, I don't believe that current VfDs should be retroactively resolved with a new policy. This helps eliminate bias from those that want certain votes to come out in a particular way. If there's no consensus on current and pending VfDs, we should just keep them and work out redirect proposals on the talk page (with RfC if needed). This policy change should only apply to VfDs submitted after we finalize it. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll second that. Gady 20:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I've resolved both of these VfD debates as no consensus (therefore keep). VfD policy does not currently mandate more than that, and movements to merge/redirect should seek support on talk pages. Also, I realize these articles are often titled badly, but people should not move them without seeking comment on the talk page. Unilateral moves only cause the article to be duplicated (with no good justification to keep the original as a redirect). These clones make everything much more difficult.
At any rate, we should reach consensus on a policy for future VfDs as this comes up regularly. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because certain components in this debate highly value surveys, I propose we should make one to say yea or nay on the proposed addition concerning redirects. Before it begins though, I would like to have as much comment on the proposed change as possible. In particular, I want to know if people originally pushing for the change approve of the qualification that binding redirect/merges must have consensus of delete+redirect/merge. If we have such a poll, I'd like it to be posted as widely as possible, because such a decision cannot be made by Israel/Palestine partisans alone. Is there agreement on the qualifiation to proposed redirect policy and the concept of the survey? Cool Hand Luke 03:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would love if people would comment on editorial decisions other than redirects. For example: has anyone participated in a VfD that terminated by a "move" or a "delete a section"? Can you give an example? And a similar question: has anyone participated in a VfD where it was unnatural to bind delete and redirect? Why? Gady 03:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Additional commentary on VfD votes should really help people who are left to work on a page—kinda like a mini RfC.
Most of the time, move votes are part of a keep vote. Many school pages end with merges. What sets most cases apart from the two we have in mind is that few people oppose such moves. For example, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Boone ended in a peaceful non-consensus redirect (not enough consensus for delete, but better consensus with delete+merge), and moves for obviously misspelled article go uncontested (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abandoned railway stations). I would like to know if there are any examples of VfD-inspired moves, merges, or redirects that were passionately fought. Cool Hand Luke 03:44, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I should also add that some people (I believe anthony, for example), vote "delete without prejudice" to express that the current page should be deleted as rubbish no one's willing to fix, but that future articles on the topic are welcome. Complex votes like this give better direction (and therefore a better hint at consensus), than a rigid three-option-and-it-takes-66%-to-win system. Cool Hand Luke 03:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I knd of have to disagree with the direction this discussion is going. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is supposed to have one of two outcomes - Delete the article or keep it. Anything else that someone adds into their vote, like a preference to redirect, merge, clean-up, etc. is just a suggestion. No other decision should be extrapolated from the votes. If an article is kept, any talk about its future status should incorporate the feedback from the VFD, but continue on the Talk page of the article in the normal manner to gain consensus to perform a redirect, move, etc.. -- Netoholic @ 03:54, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

I would very nearly agree with you, but some people have conditional votes like "Redirect, or failing that, delete." Are such votes invalid? Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic, the fact is that people do vote redirect on VfDs very often. I think it is a custom it will be very difficult to root out. Gady 04:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD Policy Update proposal

My proposal to clarify the policy (including redirects) and ease the vote counting is to use the VfD Template (below) for all VfDs. The VfD template includes clarifications and two changes:

  • One Person, One Vote.

This will prevent the unfair outcome where Deleters get "two bites of the apple" by voting for "Delete or Redirect". It will also prevent confusing and contradictory votes (like "Keep or Merge" seen recently.)

  • Presumption to Keep both the page and contents.

The VfD policy states that pages should be kept unless there is a clear consensus to delete. This extends the presumption to contents: When a page is Deleted or Redirected useful and NPOV contents should be merged elsewhere unless there is a consensus to delete.

  • Defined Vote Cut-off time.

It is beneficial to include as many votes as possible. However, if the vote cut-off time is left to the discretion of any sysop then the VfD may never end, or it may end as soon as some sysop likes the result. This is both unfair and makes the outcome unclear and subjective. To reconcile these opposing goals I propose the rule:

  • "Votes cast after the 5 day period will be counted only if there is no objection.

See the template below. HistoryBuffEr 01:57, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Update: Template revised to simplify voting (merge Delete Contents into Delete and Redirect votes). HistoryBuffEr 17:20, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Vote on the template (sign with ~~~~) here :

  • Accept as is:
  • Accept with changes:
  • Reject:
  1. --Josiah 02:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Cool Hand Luke 02:44, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) This seems unneeded in nearly all cases, inorganic, and it's illogically restrictive to confine to three votes. Can we vote on the redirect policy change instead?
  3. Gady 03:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Seems oddly restrictive. Andre (talk) 23:51, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Needlessly restrictive. Either/or votes are frequently useful. Perhaps some clarification is needed on how they are tallied, but disallowing them doesn't sound like a good idea. — Gwalla | Talk 00:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the Template:

Note further that this survey does not follow accepted guidelines, constitutes a radical change to policy (for example, always calling 66% "consensus," and not deleting contents on a delete vote), and this change hasn't even been previous presented for discussion, let alone have enough commentary on it to justify opperating a poll. This is a survey on essentually a rough draft, and is therefore not nearly as useful as a survey on a proposal revised to achieve maximum consensus. Lets scrap it and discuss the proposals first, shall we? Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • What is radical about 66% when the policy clearly states that "at least 2/3" is considered consensus?
  • The template solves the problem of confusing votes (caused by free-form voting) and makes it very easy to count votes. What other choices we need besides these 3?
  • Your "Revert policy" proposal would not solve any of these issues.
HistoryBuffEr 17:20, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Because many admins, myself included, don't think that 66% is a consensus, or that consensuses even has such clear threshhold. This is not a vote, it's an attempt to obtain consensus, and delayed resolution has sometimes proven useful to these ends. Because this is not a vote, "free form" voting is a better gauge to determine what people's opinions about an article are. Other VfD votes include "merge", "transwiki", and "rename", and combinations of votes. (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases). Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For reference, the policy states "what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a 'rough consensus'." Cool Hand Luke 19:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


VfD Template (replace with [[Page title]])

This vote is open for 5 days from submission, which was made at: (remove following "nowiki" tags) ~~~~~. The current time is: 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC). Votes cast after 5 days shall be counted only if no voter objects.

Reason for deletion

(State the reason(s), sign with ~~~~, and add your vote below.)

Votes

(Sign ONLY ONE of the following 3 choices with # ~~~~. For long comments use the section below.)

  • Keep the Title and Contents. (Objectionable contents may be subject to editing.)
  • Delete the Title. The Contents will be Merged if you do not explicitly state to Delete the Contents.
  • Redirect the Title (state where to). The Contents will be Merged, unless you state "Delete the Contents".

Tally and Conclusion

Total = T votes at (insert ~~~~~ here)

  • Keep = K% (K/T)
  • Delete = D% (D/T)
  • Redirect = R% (R/T)

Conclusion: ("Consensus to Choice X" if it received at least 66%, otherwise "No consensus, Keep").

Comments

There has been a lot of discussion about redirects and, frankly, it confuses me. Anyone may create a redirect. Anyone may undo a redirect. That's the "wiki way". Regardless, the history is there for all to see. The reason that we have extraordinary controls (votes) for page deletions is that deletions are the only conditions where content is lost to Wikipedia. As someone above said, the point of the VfD page is to determine one of two outcomes - Keep or Delete. Keep as redirect, Keep as it and all the other qualified votes are recommendations, not binding decisions.

Controversial redirects should be dealt with like all other disputed edits. Don't try to bastardize the VfD page to deal with this problem. Rossami 00:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Rossami has a good point. The fact that an article listed on VfD is not deleted has no bearing on what the content should be, or the question of whether to redirect it. If we look at things in terms of voting, it's pretty likely that most people voting "delete" would take a redirect as their second choice. But VfD does not deal directly with the issue of what to do with an article after it is kept, and we don't need instruction creep about that in the deletion policy. --Michael Snow 01:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact remains that voting "redirect" is a standard, documented Wiki habit. Generally I'm against instruction creep, but when I think how much contention would have been saved on this VfD if the rules where in place (see debate) I think maybe it's worth it. And note that Ambi, cercopia, Ed and SimonP are not the "usual suspects" for a way-too-emotional disagreement about something like the interpretation of the results of a VfD. Gady 02:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps having a rule in place might have helped one situation, but we also have to keep in mind that declaring a rule will also affect many other situations, and it may not always be so helpful. "Hard cases make bad law" and all that. I don't mind saying generally that if lots of people are saying "redirect" or "merge and redirect", those options should be strongly considered, but I'm reluctant to convert it into a formula because the trend of consensus may move towards redirecting at different points in the voting depending on when the idea occurs to someone. --Michael Snow 03:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would you support the following formulation then:
In case the majority of voters in a VfD voted for an editorial option such as "redirect" or "move", such a vote should be strongly considered. The larger the majority, the more morally binding such a vote is. If the editorial option is "redirect", then delete votes count towards it, unless special circumstances are involved.
BTW, I want to recant my previous suggestions considering protection. I think the protection issue needs to be discussed separately, in a more general setting, and in the protection policy page. Lets deal with things one at a time. Gady 03:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First sentence is the right general idea, though I would drop editorial as a modifier for option. "Morally binding" - ugh, and I don't know that it's necessary to state the obvious point that the more support an idea has, the closer it is to a consensus. My wording on the final sentence would be: "Also keep in mind that most people voting to delete would probably support this option as a fallback position."
And yes, protection is a separate issue that doesn't need to be treated here. --Michael Snow 04:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In your wording for the final sentence, "this option" relates to redirect only or to redirect, move etc. ? Gady 15:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suppose I was thinking primarily about redirect, as I think that's the most common alternative suggested on VfD. If you plan to incorporate my suggestions, feel free to tweak the language for additional improvements. --Michael Snow 19:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Removed some vfds which did not comply with deletion policy"

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Removed some vfds which did not comply with deletion policy.

—siroχo seems confident that it is within policy for him to remove items from VfD if he has determined that they are "blatantly are not following the Deletion policy"

The discussion has begun there, so it might as well continue there, but this does seem like a deletion policy issue to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)