Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy 

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Archive
Archives

Contents

Administrative Abuses and Oppression of Content

This is suppose to be a community based effort yet the Administrators of the site seem to have taken as extremely opressive and community un-friendly approach to management of the site. This oppressive state of affairs turns off potential contributors, such as myself, to attempting to participate in this community effort. It seems as if the deletion policy has grown out of necesity to protect the validity and relavance of the information provided through the use of wikipedia, but that due to the very nature of of ideolgy they are trying to protect, they have instead reach a critical point where they have begun to hasten the destruction of the sites usefulness as a community effort. If new articles posted by new users cannot be allowed to be goverened by the same users that participate in its creation, then what's the point? Subjectivity is running rampid in wikipedia and it's only going to get worse as the divion between community members grows. Wikipedia has ceised to be a community based project when the majority of conent can be selectively delete at will by it's administrators rather then through debate and discussion by the community at large. Perhaps this is a technical limitation of the software or perhaps it's just human nature to want to dominate others in whatever fashion is presented to you, if given the option to do so. In teh end, Wikipedia is failing to provide it's users with it's intended benefits. Zenasprime (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy request

Several articles are repeatedly nominated for deletion. Some editors feel that, if they don't get the answer they want the first time, just keep nominating until they do. I would like to see a minimum time limit between repeat nominations. Something like 3 months if the vote is no consensus and 6 or 12 months if the vote is keep. Any supporters? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problems with doing so are:
  • Articles kept with a Cleanup rationale that are never touched following AfD.
  • Articles deleted and recreated with no different material, yet rewritten with further unreferenced information (i.e. still fails WP:V or WP:RS,) yet can't be speedied as G4).
  • The article is edited, but the edits lead to outright violations of policy (and the violating material becomes essentially inextricable.) - Yes, you can revert to the last "clean" version. Doing so leads to an edit war. If the article was dubious enough to be AfD with support, an editor in good faith may feel the article has become even more deletable.
  • Changes in policy (Example:WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards), which might change the rationale for deletion of previous articles.
There are probably other reasons - this was an off-the-top-of-my-head list. I also think that "asking the other parent" exists (and is already covered in Consensus in the link preceding this.) Proving it, though, may well be impossible.
Granted, but we do currently have the problem of politically motivated AfDs continuously being called. Its time wasting ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the good reasons have been listed and one of the less good one mentioned as an aside. All that's necessary is to examine 2nd and further AfDs, and see to what extent any of the good reasons apply. Almost never is there new negative information. Notice also how many times the 2nd article is the weaker: "Delete and then destroy." Judge for yourself. When I came here I first thought that once people understood what was happening, they would change the policy. No, they'd rather fight than edit. 50% of the effort at AfD goes to delete articles, 40% to keep them, and 10% to improve them. DGG 02:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Seabhcan. I don't think there should be a minimum time limit between repeat nominations. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Problem articles" tables

I notice that the "problem articles" tables were recently readded on the basis that they are "really helpful". That may be the case, but they are also repetitive and bulky/unwieldy. I propose that we (1) move the tables to a subpage of Wikipedia:Deletion policy or create an essay titled Wikipedia:Handling problem articles or the like, (2) restore the prose that was removed, and (3) link to the subpage or essay in the (restored) "Alternatives to deletion" section. Would that be an acceptable compromise for all interested parties? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup resources page lists tags which can be applied if cleanup is needed. They don't specifically say, "if this is a problem with an article, don't list it for deletion, do this instead, so to speak, as the deletion alternatives table used to do. I think it helps users to actually have it in writing, "for problem XYZ, don't delete, do this instead". Is there somewhere useful for the actual tables? FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the aforementioned Wikipedia:Handling problem articles, which you could link from e.g. the header of WP:AFD. I think the point is that the "deletion policy" should be concise and deal with deleting pages; not add a verbose list of other options. >Radiant< 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Radiant. The deletion policy page should be reserved for general policy rather than detailed advice on what to do in dozens of specific circumstances. The tables are useful tool but are not suited for a policy page (though there'd be nothing wrong in linking to it from this and the AfD page). Black Falcon (Talk) 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirection as a deletion

Is there any WP policy that deals with people deleting articles and making them redirect to another page? I've seen articles that have been nominated for deletion, survived the vote and then one individual user made the page redirect to another one. Is there no Wikipedia policy against this? Mglovesfun 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actual deletion involves removing a page's history from view. Redirection, on the other hand, constitutes a change of the content of a page that can be reversed by any user. Sometimes a page is redirected after it's history is deleted, but that only occurs when the AfD consensus is to "delete" or "delete, then redirect". The appropriateness of redirecting a page that recently survived an AfD discussion depends on the particular circumstances, but it is not specifically prohibited. If you disagree with the redirection, you may simply undo it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In practice, this sort of redirection is very often used to remove an article, because it escapes public notice. It can and generally should be challenged by reverting, and then discussing it on the talk page, as part of WP:BOLD. I think WP BOLD a remarkably unfortunate policy calculated to lead to edit wars, but editing in this manner is considered acceptable here, and there are no signs of this combative attitude changing. If the original redirect was a POV, and the POV is unacceptable to the editors on the page, it will of course not succeed--this however tends to reflect more the strengths of the positions than the merits. Editing disputes are dealt with through Dispute Resolution, a process that works for good faith differences of opinion, but in practice is helpless is there are basic disagreements. A third opinion and then a RfC are the first steps--they do sometimes work. The third step, Mediation, requires the agreement of both sides to the mediation. (You will allow for my cynical bias here--most of the more experienced people here are quite satisfied with the overall process)DGG 01:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It's nearly always acceptable to revert and discuss a redirect, unless there is an overriding policy reason. Biographies of living persons and Copyright are the most obvious ones, and this will usually be indicated in the edit summary. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review over unsourced stubs

I've added the following statement to the section on deletion review:

It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available.

We've had a few cases recently of people challenging speedies of stuff that obviously wouldn't pass AfD, and this is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia, in particular Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rather than waste time on reviewing the deletion, as good Wikipedians we should just get cracking and write a proper sourced stub on the subject.

Of course we don't want editors going around deleting perfectly good articles, and of course it's appropriate to challenge the deletion of such articles, but it really isn't right to challenge the deletion of a really poor, brief, unsourced stub, when it's much easier and wastes less time to produce a good, well sourced stub in its place. --Tony Sidaway 01:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

the WP:STUB guideline does not specify that a stub to be sourced, just that it contain enough information to be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tony here: in cases where the article had so little content that it could be easily recreated as a better article, there's little reason to wait for a DRV rather than just edit it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AGF enforcement

I am serious about the fact that many nominators and participants in AfDs assume they are exempt from WP:AGF merely because the are nominating or supporting an article they believ should be deleted. This is especially true of certain types of articles, such as pop-culture or trivia articles. I have created several such articles with good sources attesting to the notability of each item therein, but you would not know it from the comments in these AFDs. In addition, of the 5 or so articles I have participated in creating or editing that were AfDed, no nominator EVER approached me or the other editors involved to dicsuss the matter first. In several cases, I may have voluntarily removed the info had someone expressed their concerns first. Even though contacting editors first is recommended in the Deletion process as an step before filing an AfD. THese nominators assume that because they disagree with the "type" of article, they don't have to show common courtesies. THis week, an ediotor nominated an aircraft incident article that existed for only one minute, and still will not conceed that this was too soon. It seems obvious to me that such behavoir will continue until these policies are changed to make it clear that ALL editors on Wikipedia should exercise common courtesies, and asumme good faith, when deling with articles that are not obvious hoaxes or vandalsim of some form. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What? This only makes sense if those acting in good faith are incapable of making an article which should be deleted, which is by far not the case. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why we're urged to "assume" good faith. When it's possible the article has not been created in good faith, you should still "asssume" it was until proven otherwise. Again, you're not exempt from AGF just because you nominate AFDs. - BillCJ 07:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Project notification of AfD

Recently, members of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force have been accused of canvassing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7#Republic_Airlines_flight_4912_&_SkyWest_Airlines_flight_5741 by a number of editors, with the canvassing as one reason that a nomination should be relisted. However, the only "canvassing" that occurred was a notification placed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page. The task force is a group of editors dedicating to standardizing and managing coverage of avitaion-related incidents, including the current formulation of notability guidelines. These activities necessite an awareness of articles being nominated for AfD. In the past month, 3 other article nominated for AfD have been posted on the talk page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 897, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight 952, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1455. Two of these were deleted, as they were not notable, and on of those was a hoax. If canvassing has occured in this case, then the same canvassing occured with these three AfDs, and they should also be listed for review. However, I strongly contest the canvassing accusation, as, per WP:CANVASS, It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. While some may classify the group as "partisan", it does strive to be objective, as the other examples given illustrate. I see no reason why projects should not be informed of AfDs of articles within their subject. In fact, I would like to see notification of the concered projects formally allowed, if not made mandatory, and am proposing some form of that now. - BillCJ 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an unfortunate assumption that members of a project will defend any articles in scope, but this is simply not so. It at least the projects I follow, the people there are the most concerned of all to see that the articles are good. I've even once or twice joined projects that I thought were supporting poor articles, and found a great willingness of some of the people there to have additional help in deleting them. I think it should not only be permissible, it should be required. I think that the nom of an afd should be absolutely required to take the responsibility of notifying the previous editors, and the relevant projects. They should be notified at the start before the pile on voting begins. for articles that should be deleted, getting someone knowledgeable to say so early on greatly helps things, instead of relying on whoever is sitting around. I certainly try to say delete as soon as I can for the really bad articles of purported academics. DGG (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's really the notification that's the problem, more that there wasn't an opportunity for anyone else to comment. -Amarkov moo! 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
"Canvassing" was probably an unfortunate choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to make reference to WP:CANVASS, the point I was trying to make on DRV was that the discussion was speedily closed before anyone other than those who saw the link on the Aviation accident task force page really got a chance to even look at it. Not that there was something wrong about that link or about the task force contributors proffering their thoughts. --Stormie 07:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Still, the nominator did outright accuse of of canvassing. I agree it's unfortunate the AFD was closed incorrectly. As far as I know, the editor who speedy closed it has nothing to do with the project, as I don't recall ever seeing the editor on a WP:AVIATION article or discussion page. I think he was just someone trying to do the right thing, without relaizing he did it the wrong way, as was the original nominator. - BillCJ 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I think we need a rethink of the AfD process. This is supposed to be a collaborative project, and I don't see how nominating a newly created article one minute after creation fosters collaboration. At minimum, the nominator of an AfD has to make a good faith effort to see if an article can be improved, rather than deleted, and that can't be done in one minute. I'm really tired of people throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks at AfD. I believe the project notification idea is a good one, because it fosters collaboration. I would also like to make two additional suggestions:
  1. Require that some other tag be applied to the article first, such as one of the notability tags, to alert editors of the potential nominator's concerns. This way, the editor can try to resolve the nominator's concerns without having to start an AfD. If they are not resolved in a reasonable time period, this will provide a much better starting point for an AfD, rather than the usual moving target.
  2. Require a seconding of the nomination on AfD. Many AfD's end without any delete votes because they were completely ill advised. By requiring another editor to second the nomination before the AfD process actually starts, we can save a lot of wasted effort.
Dhaluza 11:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Silence = Consensus? Dhaluza 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like both of your ideas, but the seconding idea may need some sort of limit, such as requiring an admin to second it, as alot of regular nominators are familiar with each other from other nominations. I guess we just need to formulate a proposal here, and if there's no objection, go ahead and add it to the Policy. THEN we'll get the discussions going, with plenty of objections! :) - BillCJ 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised Dhaluza's three proposals haven't already been strongly objected to. Well, that's why I'm here ... just kidding. I actually support the idea of project notification. In fact, I think a bot could do this fairly easily: whenever an articles is nominated for deletion, a bot could notify any project whose tag appears on the talk page. I also agree with disallowing AfDs of newly-created articles (CSD and prod are fine, though). I think 24 to 72 hours after tagging is a reasonable range and could reduce the workload at AfD. I don't, however, agree with the third idea (seconding of nominations), given that there are relatively few unanimous "keep" AfDs. Besides, if a nomination receives only "keep" responses, the nominator should be able to figure out that they made a mistake and withdraw after a while. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point about the seconding being unnecessary, but we've both seen enough editors who just keep nominating articles the same way as before as if they are incapable of making mistakes! :) That, for me anyway, is part of the desire for some control over the nomination process. THere might be another way to accomplish this, and I'm certainly open to other suggestions. - BillCJ 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think seconding will reduce the number of repeat nominations (even if admin involvement is required, which I don't support for a variety of reasons). To be honest, I'm not sure what can be done. The most obvious solution (a minimum waiting period between nominations) has been repeatedly suggested and rejected. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BlackFalcon--the non-realistic nominations for deletion come from only a very few people, often those new to AfD. What is needed is to educate them, and the reaction at AfD do that effectively. People off on a POINT of their own don't take kindly to individuals telling them they're wrong--the consensus at afd is what does it. DGG (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD stuff

Does anyone here watch Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion? I've got a couple of points over there that I was hoping to get some feedback on. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD Abuse

It is time for this policy to lay out what can not be used as a rationale for deletion, otherwise we have nonstop AFD nominations made on absolutely bogus grounds. Since when have essays been sources of a rationale for deletion? That said, WP:Listcruft is used over and over again by abusers of the system. Why are votes that clearly are not grounded in any kind of policy or consensus counted on here? WP:POINT is meaningless anymore, as most of the regulars on AFD are guilty of it. I propose we make a section that states essays are not permissable rationale for deletion. I mean, if it is an essay it has no consensus. Given this reasoning, I could write an essay in a few minutes and just start nominating articles for deletion citing it. (Mind meal 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Proposed addition

Sentence:(specific sections must always be mentioned when referring to WP:NOT as a rationale) to "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" in the section WP:Deletion#Reasons_for_deletion.

RATIONALE:*Delete per WP:NOT, or Delete because the "article is not encyclopediac". If you spend any time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, you would know that this rationale is constantly given by deletionists. The voter has basically provided no rationale, because they have yet to point out what policy is violated. WP:NOT exists only because of its sections. Outside of that, it is just a title. Obvious inclusion, and is far from this "instruction creep" stuff. One sentence is hardly unmanageable. (Mind meal 12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Since you insisted on adding it for a third time, I must be the person to start the discussion apparently. I strongly object to the wording of that addition, because it is nothing more than instruction creep. Can you please remove it and try and get some consensus on this page before re-adding. This is a policy page and if someone objects to your change you should NOT just re add it. re-adding it twice is ridiculous. Read the tag at the top of the page. ViridaeTalk 11:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep = telling them they MUST do something. They don't have to do anything. And yes, being an admin I have spent some time at afd on occasion, closed a few discussion in my time. I ask you again, can you please remove it and discuss the change as it does not yet enjoy consensus. ViridaeTalk 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are policies then instruction creep, since users must follow them? What is wrong with requiring voters to be specific about policy when voting? This place is incredulous in its reasoning. Of course, this is a place dedicated to deleting things, so fans of that sort will show up. (Mind meal 12:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
No. Policies are instructions, and as such they should be simple and easy to follow. Adding a million little "You musts" and :you must nots" IS instruction creep, and this is one such "you must". If someone wants to cite just WP:NOT without citing the specific rationale, then let them They are half as likely to be ignored if it is nto immeediately obvious. Once again, can you please remove the section you added as it does not enjoy consensus. ViridaeTalk 12:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you did. Might I point out that adding to instructions is bureaucracy, and keeping them simple isn't... ViridaeTalk 12:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I did this because voters have obviously been visiting this policy page, finding Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, and stating "content not suitable for an encyclopedia" after voting for a deletion. This section is not simple, because lazy people don't click that little WP:NOT link disguised as the word "not". They just assume that description best fits their feelings. Do you see where I'm coming from? Why is it okay for users to vote for a deletion without providing rationale? That should be unacceptable. And yet it happens time and time again without any consequence. It gets so old. I'm tired of people who shouldn't be allowed to vote voting. If you can't give a reason for your vote, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. WP:NOT is NOT a reason for deletion, it is a page of what Wikipedia is not. That page has sections that may or may not apply to an article. You know, the more time I spend here the more I remember how George Bush is president. (Mind meal 12:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
I do see where you are coming from, but speaking as an admin, afd is not a vote, so if the rational has not been explained or is ambiguous then I would probobly ignore it in my close. ViridaeTalk 12:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Now come on. I've seen too many cases where such votes are counted up as consensus and an article is deleted. Just because you might ignore it certainly does not mean that is the norm here. Often these votes are treated as the final say, you know that. (Mind meal 12:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
If that is the case, then deletion review is your recourse. The best option would be to ask them to explain what they mean if they are being ambiguous. However telling them they must explain is in my opinion making the process overly bureaucratic. ViridaeTalk 12:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Why should someone have the power of a vote if they cannot provide a reason that is specific in regards to the article in question. It is like me saying, Delete Violation of Wikipedia. Lmao. I don't need anything reviewed, because I never had my work deleted. What happened is I spent days defending my work instead of adding content. Look, if someone wants to bring it on with reason I'm all game. At least they demonstrate they have taken the time to understand the issues. But if someone wants to nominate an article for deletion with rationale derived from an essay; or just their whim....wtf? Why is that allowed? (Mind meal 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Require discussion before deletion

Per the discussion above I would like to make a formal proposal to initiate discussion before deletion. Too many AfD's are based on faulty assumptions, or are so unfocused, that they are completely counter-productive. Also the issue of AfD's initiated just minutes after creation of an article needs to be addressed. Any editor who thinks an article needs to be deleted should make their concerns known on the article's talk page, and apply an appropriate tag first. Then the article would be eligible for AfD only after waiting a reasonable length of time (not to be specified explicitly) to allow others to participate in a discussion, and/or address the concerns by editing the article. This would not affect other types of deletion such as speedy or prod, because they have separate procedures that generally require prior notification on the article. But if they were contested, then a post to the talk page would be needed before moving to AfD. Because the AfD process takes a few days already, adding a day or two is not a big deal, and if it avoids unnecessary AfD's, or produces a more focused AfD discussion leading to consensus (either way) instead of no-consensus, then it is well worth the extra time. Editors who want to comment on the AfD can collect from the talk page additional data points on which to base their comments, rather than shooting from the hip, which will also help address the issue of early comments being contradicted by later comments. WP is supposed to be a collaborative project, and this would foster collaboration over confrontation in addressing article inclusion issues. Dhaluza 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support I agree, as too often the only people voting here are AFD regulars and deletionists. People who generally don't even understand the specific articles, or the actual policies or guidelines that GOVERN them. How many times have you seen someone vote without a rationale for deletion? Or "per above" when that 'per above" provided no rationale! I'll go a step further. We need a way to involve more people in the discussion. I believe a boiler-plate text should be sent out to anyone who has edited the article stating that it is now up for deletion. I also propose anyone who fails to provide a rationale based on a guideline or policy should subsequently fail to be counted. (Mind meal 13:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Support - Possibly also a notification to the projects involved, tho this could wait for the formal AfD. - BillCJ 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While the idea is good inthoery, it just makes afd even more overly bureaucratic in reality. I would be happy for someone to draft some wording that encourages people to discuss the issue first, but not forcing the issue. Yes there are times when a disucssion would help the article - many articles are improved in afd because of the threat of imminent deletion. However there are many articles that almost unquestionably should be deleted, but don't fit under the speedy deletion policy. ViridaeTalk 23:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then the discussion should bear that out, and the article might even be SNOWed soon after the AFD starts. But I fail to see how requiring people to discuss an article first is harmful. THe problem is that too many editors jump to file AFDs, when the article's problems could be solved without going to an AFD. We're just trying to avoid unnecessary AFDs, which take up time better spent on improving an article. Last night, I was trying to stop a disruptive editor from adding unsourced POV material to an article, and even posted comments on the talk page. I woke up this morning to find the page had been AFDed by editor not involved in the page. We did finally reach a solution, and the AFD was withdrawn. It should be common sense to check an article's history and talk pages to see if other editors are trying to fix an article. However, since discussions aren't required, many editors feels they don't have to discuss at all. Hence our proposal. - BillCJ 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how initiating a non-binding discussion first is bureaucratic--it's collaborative, which is what a Wiki is. Using the talk page first would not hinder deletion of articles that should be deleted, in fact I believe it will facilitate the process. Issues should not be first raised in an AfD discussion. The talk page is a tool for discussing an article, and that tool should be used before AfD. Dhaluza 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: AfDs are discussion, not voting, despite assertions in previous sections. The proposal would introduce unnecessary complication and would be a goldmine for those who like Wiki-lawyering. Valid deletions would be thwarted because somebody would claim that there wasn't discussion or sufficient discussion before the AfD. Further, most AfDs are preceded by some discussion and review when a Speedy Delete tag is placed and a "hangon" tag is replied, or for a ProD, or when Template:Notability tags are placed. As Wikipedia has matured it has swung from inclusionist to deletionist and this is fit and proper since the most noteworthy stuff already has articles and the new articles tend to be less and less noteworthy as the encyclopedia progresses. Extra bureaucracy will gum up the works. Discussion should be encouraged but not required before entering AfD discussions. Hu 04:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this is a non-notable point, and smacks of WP:LIKE. It should be deleted. Does that sound like a discussion to you?? - BillCJ 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Like my two colleagues above, I oppose as stated, -- not because its wrong, but because its too much of a complicated and heavy-handed way of doing it. We already require discussion before deletion--the need is to improve the quality and participation in the discussion, and adding another stage will not help this. Many afds already end up in an improved article, and this should be encouraged. A more frequent use of continuing them a second week would help. Nor do we now count votes--we judge good arguments by the number of people who think them good, which ought to be another matter. Frequently there isnt enough discussion, or a debate is closed by count rather than by policy--and this should be addressed by a much more frequent use of deletion review, and a wider general participation in it.I proposed going one step at a time, and the first step is to require notifying all significant contributors. A bot is a crude way of doing it, and might generate too many notices, so Im not sure just how to work it. But notification should be absolutely required, and afds should not be not listed until they are notified. Perhaps the way to do it is a group of clerks, as is used at Arb Com. Some of the more experienced people do some of this already as they can, but it's hit and miss. Lets try something like this first. I certainly have been advocating reform in afd proceedure since I came here--I am very glad something is moving, but I have been here long enough to know it has to be done slowly, as attitudes change. DGG (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Your suggestions are good, and they are certainly better than nothing. If all we get out of this discussion is to implement your suggestions, then that is a step toward improving things. To address the point of adding another layer to the bueracracy, it may actually eliminate the AFD entirely for many aritcles, which saves everyone a lot of time. The article can be improved without the axe of deletion hagning over its head, or it may be merged to another article (with or without discussion on merging, depending on the circumstances). Too many people seem to view AFDs as a sacred act, rather than as one of many processes or tools to use to improve Wikipedia. An AFD should be a last resort, not a first one. Yes, there are articles that have no business being here, but don't qualify for CSDs or PRODs, but I can't see them as being the majority. Most problems can be fixed without the need for an AFD, if people would just take the time to talk about it first. - BillCJ 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • When someone starts an AfD, they are asking the entrie WP community to join them in a discussion. What is wrong with the community asking the nominator to start a discussion on the article talk page first? Dhaluza 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (<g>) And what difference does it make if the AfD and reason are posted on the talk page as well as on the article, which would meet the "discussion" "requirement". (It would also significantly add to the burden in nominating Wikipedia:walled gardens, as well as scattering the discussion, making it less likely improvements would be made, or seen if made.) Notification is a different matter, but unless done by a bot of some sort, even if the nominator selects the people to be notified (eliminating bot edits, typo correction, vandalism, and clear removal of vandalism from the edit history), it provides an unreasonable burden on the nominator. Also, it's claimed that some users are banned from other user's talk pages, and they would then be unable to nominate those editors' articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would oppose this, mostly per user:DGG. Talk page discussions tend to be less organised, and sometimes are hard to find on a long page. I think I would support making it mandatory to notify the talk page of any project with their banner on the article (which would not affect all that many I guess). Also note that at CfD the notice only goes on the category page, which hardly anybody typically has edited or is watching. Personally I would like to see talk page bot notices on all articles in affected categories, and/or notification to related projects or "main relevant articles". Johnbod 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have several points regarding this.
  1. I'm getting tired of the deletionist/inclusionist distinction. Hardly anyone I've come across has views that are really that simple, except for the "wikipedia should be a repository of all knowledge" types, who are of course free to start their own wiki.
  2. More to the point, an AfD discussion pulls in fresh eyes; the article regulars will tend to contribute if they want to, as they'll be aware of it through their watchlist. Discussion on a talk page will tend to be rather one-sided.
  3. On the side point of notifying wikiprojects, I think this definitely should be done in the case of AfD.
  4. It's just more WP:CREEP.
I think that covers my thoughts pretty well. SamBC 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion on a talk page will tend to be rather one-sided. - Uh, the whole point here is not to decide if an AFD should be done, but to see if the problems leading to the desire to nominate a page for AFD can be solved without an AFD. If the nominator feels the discussions are one-sided, and not going anywhere, he/she is free to file the AFD. But if the regular editors are willing to solve the problem, that avoids the need for the AFD at all. And won't that reduce the bueracracy in the long run? - BillCJ 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A bot could notify WikiProjects if the links have a standarized form. It's a good idea, and XfD's other than AfD's may need more notifications, which probably cannot be done by someone who hadn't been watching the category/template for some time, as the information as to who uses categories and templates is not available in Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification this proposal does not address notifying editors or projects directly. It is limited to raising issues on the talk page first, before bringing them to AfD. Dhaluza 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't begin to explain just how creepy this idea is, but Hu and Arthur Rubin did a pretty good jobs at it. Must we require a discussion about having a discussion? AfD is its own filter and I honestly don't think requiring a pre-discussion discussion ahead of an AfD will actually help what you see as faulty deletion nominations. As Hu has stated, it would be a constant source of Wiki-lawyering in order to overturn valid deletions. Just like notification of a WikiProject or the major contributors, it should never be a requirement. --Farix (Talk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DGG, but with a few exceptions. I have participated, both as Ispy1981 and under this name, in roughly two to three hundred AfDs. First off, I think that the nominator should extend the courtesy of letting the author of the article know when their article is up for deletion. Second, I don't know if a second week is needed, but a full week of discussion should be implemented. Third, except in cases of obvious WP:SNOW, I think the discussion should take place for the full alloted time. Quite often, discussions are closed too early, often leading to another discussion on DRV. I think the load on DRV would be lightened if we allowed for the full time.--Sethacus 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh what bureaucratic nonsense! An AfD is a discussion. You want to make it mandatory now on Wikipedia to hold discussions about discussions? Bollocks! And since when do we hold silly bloody half-arsed votes on this talk page about major changes to deletion policy? --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony civility please. This is a good faith concern, even if you and I believe it is misguided, that doesn't warrant the use of language like that. ViridaeTalk 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of incivility, it's a matter of saying plainly: this is bollocks. Having said that we can move on to more important concerns. --Tony Sidaway 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but your language left a lot to be desired. There are politer ways of expressing your sentiment than that. Please remember to use them. ViridaeTalk 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, an AFD is a discussion about deleting an article, not solving its problems! What we are proposing is a discussion to address the concerns of the nominator regarding an article, which may be able to be addressed without deletion, such as through merging or expansion. Most AFDs last about a week; some problems could be solved in just a few hours through discussion. What's your goal here: good articles, or more AFDs? - BillCJ 21:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
that isnt what it should be. And Afd is a discussion about what to do with an article, with the proposed remedy being deletion because there seems to better option. During the discussion, people supporting the article either suggest better options, or explain why it is OK as is or with minor improvements, and those supporting deletion either agree that there is another option or explain why they wouldnt work, and in 5 days a consensus forms.
that's the theory. -- it does not always to even usually, work that way. But Tony from his viewpoint & I from my rather different one want to return it to that, as I know from previous discussions with him. (Tony, help in this--if there are proposed to be change in deletion policy this IS the place to discuss it. Obviously we would need wider community consensus, but this is exactly the right place to discuss a proposed change.)
Personally, when I have concerns with an article, and I think there is any chance of getting it through discussion, I do raise the question on the talk page. (I've just finished doing just that in two or three places) It works maybe one-quarter of the time. Other people do just the same--look around, there are thousands of such discussions in progress. that's the purpose behind WP:BOLD--if you want improvements, make them, and then work out a compromise. For the ones that cant or wont be improved, then there;s afd. But when I come across an article that I do not think can be improved, I afd directly and say so.

What is needed is more participation, and more intelligent participation in the existing methods. I'm at AfD a lot, and so is Tony--don't leave it up to us. come and propose improvements to articles. DGG (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

Er, guys? Policy is most definitely not created or amended by voting on them, so can we please cut out the bold-faced supports and opposes? Thanks. Other than this, you're alluding to a problem without citing evidence of that problem, and your "solution" basically consists of discussing things in two different places in sequence (the talk page, then AFD), so I fail to see how that is much of an improvement. Yes, some AFDs are misguided, but no, this issue is not solved by starting similarly misguided discussions in other places. >Radiant< 11:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What Radiant said. If you want to discuss an article prior to the AFD, what do you think article talk pages are for? Neil ╦ 13:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture articles

Is anyone keeping a list of the AfDs of popular culture articles? Some of them have potential. I have little hope of stemming the tide of people who fail to see the distinction between a trivial list and a genuine article on cultural responses over decades or centuries (and in some cases millenia), or those who fail to distinguish between fictional and non-fictional topics, but some order would be nice. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is the poster child for how to handle this sort of material. Something similar could be done with Dinosaurs in popular culture, but the current AfD crowd seem ignorant of cultural studies. A distinction needs to be made between topics that have genuinely spawned a discernable legacy that has been commented on in reliable sources, and those where people are just aggregating trivia. I'm prepared to look back through the archives and gather a list, but first I thought I'd ask if there is an easy way to find "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/<insert name here> in popular culture" AfDs? And before anyone misunderstands my motivation, articles with potential would have trivia cleaned out, sources added, and clearly defined criteria (to exclude trivia) before being ressurrected. In most cases, this would be a complete rewrite and would not be circumventing the previous AfD. So, how best to gather a list of these AfDs? Carcharoth 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this advanced search on Google didn't find anything, though I expected searching under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ for pages with "in popular culture" in the title would have worked. BigNate37(T) 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec) AFD mentions from Google DRV mentions from Google. GRBerry 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I wasn't thinking. The internal Wikipedia search works very well here. Have a look at this. Carcharoth 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with how you referred to this as a tide of deletions (more like tidal wave!). It is requirement t::hat AfD's have proper discussion before an article gets deleted. As it stands now with the floods of related articles being nominated for deletion it is impossible for interested editors to properly discuss the deletions with the depth the articles and wikipedia deserve. Mathmo Talk 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been a fundamental misunderstand of WP policy--that deletion is the last resort in improving articles. The way to have encouraged improvement would have been to nominate one or two, encourage discussion by notifying all those working on the article and related articles, and, when it was clear that a major question of the appropriate nature of material for WP was involved, to have moved to a more general discussion. I've proposed a requirement for notification at the talk page for WP:AFD, and it is being strongly objected to as a/ not worth the work, and b/ aimed at getting excessive participation in Afd from people who presumably would want the articles kept. a/ can be done by a bot, and b/ is in my mind totally opposed to the point of having AfD discussions in the first place. DGG (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Carch - there are people that sort all AFDs into topical lists. If pop culture isn't already one of those, it could easily be added. >Radiant< 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. On an aside, I've noticed people sometimes fail to spell Carcharoth correctly, though that is only the second time someone's called me Carch. It sounds strange to me, Rad! :-P Carcharoth 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, although it is updated only sporadically. — Black Falcon (Talk) 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Bingo! Now, why was it so difficult to find that? :-) Carcharoth 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These in popular culture articles usually violate original research. For example, it appears that some read The Library of Babel, saw what they thought was a reference to Infinite monkey theorem, and then added that original research to Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. In addition, they usually violate WP:V because the entries are not referenced. Further, these list usually have no defined membership criteria as described at Wikipedia:Lists#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_lists. The effect is to create an article that violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And when they include biographical material, the raise WP:BLP issues. Essentially, these popular culture articles are likely to violate four of Wikipedia's five article standards policies. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all true. However, care should be taken to handle each individual case on its own merits. It is perfectly possible for an article on "foo in popular culture" not to meet these criticisms, and to be a decent article, especially in cases where there has been prior study on the phenomenon. That said, I don't think I've seen any such articles, more's the pity. SamBC(talk) 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notifications of proposed deletions

Sometimes people who have edited articles are notified when someone proposes their deletion. That is a good idea because those who edit an article often know something about the topic and can add relevant information not available elsewhere. Sometimes WikiProjects are notified for the same reason. However, I've been told by a number of people that deletion policies do not recommend such notices. Since there are clear reasons why such notifications are useful, I think this page ought to recommend it.

(Some legalistically inclined people have even made a point of saying that the lack of such a recommendation here should be given weight as a reason not to do it! One should improve Wikipedia only by doing what's required or at least recommended by promulgated guidelines, not by what common sense tells you would improve it.) Michael Hardy 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I've been told the same thing, and not as nicely - they usually flat-out call it canvassing! With certian types of AFDs, howeve, I've found that simply listing the AFD on the required list page for AFDs is tantamount to canvassing. To me, the primary contributors should be notified, if possible, and the project(s) which the article falls under should be also. I've been involved in enough AFDs of WP:AIR pages to know there is a WIDE variety of opinion of whether certain pages should exist or be deleted, and I strongly suspect it's true in other projects as well. Most importantly though, project have the most experience with those kind of articles, and it is silly to exclude notification of them. Notification of projects should be explicitly allowed, even recommended, if not required, without fear of accusations such as canvassing by others. - BillCJ 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The way to avoid accusations of canvassing is to notify everyone likely to be involved.Even if we are not to require notification--as I very strongly think we should--it should be stated unambiguously that notifying all significant recent editors, or projects, is both permitted and encouraged. It is a incorrect assumption that this will lead to the keeping of unworthy article--who are more likely to recognize the non-notable than those involved with the subject field? who are more likely to want that the subject they care about be properly represented by good articles? who would not want their input? DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The way to avoid accusations of canvassing is to notify everyone likely to be involved.
Notifying those likely to be involved is just what got me accused of "canvassing", although I didn't urge them to keep the article, only to express their opinions on whether it should be kept. And what's wrong with canvassing anyway? It seems to me there are common-sense reasons why canvassing could be good for Wikipedia in general. Michael Hardy 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Canvassing and associated talk might be worth reading. GRBerry 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If any such wording is added to the deletion policy, it must be very explicitly stated that such is a recommendation and in no way a requirement. On general principle I have to oppose the inclusion of this kind of recommendation as placing too much a burden on the nominator. How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article? I can understand if someone wants to notify the projects that are listed on the article's talk page, but even that is less self-evident than picking out editors. An editor's interest in an article is obvious based upon edit history, whereas the rather boilerplate {{Project Whatever}} tags can be added at a single editor's discretion and do not necessarily reflect interest on behalf of the community.
For what it is worth, I believe that the issues people have had in the past with notifying Wikiprojects being tantamount to canvassing is due to a concern that while visitors to an AfD tend to represent a broader cross-section of editors and (at least ideally) be less biased in any one direction, the involvement of a project has the potential to flood a discussion with one subset of editors who typically share a point of view and will thus taint the discussion in that direction.
Personally I am not a fan of notifications of any kind - people with a genuine interest in an article will have it watchlisted and be made aware of the nomination (assuming the proper procedure is followed). Many Wikiprojects have a scheme in place to create a notification for articles they care to "watch" as well. I see no need to broadcast the fact to a group of people who might be interested who otherwise show little to no interest in the development of said article. I do not support notifying Wikiprojects as it has the potential to foment a sense of project ownership over an article or a set of articles. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In my own experience with AFD, the statement "the involvement of a project has the potential to flood a discussion with one subset of editors who typically share a point of view and will thus taint the discussion in that direction." sounds rather humorous to me. I have found that many deletionists are regulars of that board, and thus have a systematic bias when voting. Moreover, these deletionists rarely are "experts" on the subjects they are proposing for deletion. I have seen many valuable lists, for instance, get canned due to ignorance on the part of such editors who have assumed an article is "unencyclopediac". This sort of proposition will get more people involved with AFD in general, doing away with "debates" amongst like-minded deletionists with user boxes stating that much. Often it is a matter of an individual not understanding rocket science, and thus assuming their ignorance equals lack of criteria for inclusion. (Mind meal 07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article?

By using common sense. They're not required to be infallible or omniscient. It's just something that might help improve Wikipedia. It is always a good idea to call the existence of any article to the attention of those likely to be able to contribute to it and improve it. Michael Hardy 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and observe the practical utility: by notifying those interested, one avoids a possible later need to got to a deletion review, which would only complicate things and make more work necessary. Michael Hardy 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article?
By checking the talk page! Most projects have headers that are posted at the top of the page. If there's not one because it's a new article (especially if it was only created 2 minutes before the AFD was filed! - really happened!), then a good editor would check articles on a similar topic to see what project those articles were in ,and then notify them. - BillCJ 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason these are frequently called canvassing, is because the "notifications" way too often take the form of messages like "those $#$%ing %&*$#s are trying to delete our great article! You must come here now and vote to keep it!" >Radiant< 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And therefore a standardized wording is desirable. The templates for all three methods of deletion have such a notice, if only people would simply use it. DGG (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of certain groups or certain users being "interested in" an article; it's a matter of certain groups and certain users being knowledgeable about the subject and therefore able to contribute. Michael Hardy 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: What got me accused of "canvassing" shortly before I posted this proposal here, is simply that I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics of a proposed deletation, without urging the to support or to oppose deletion. Michael Hardy 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of wording of the policy

I am unsure of the current policy on deletion and was unable to clarify by reading the deletion policy. I propose to clarify the wording of the policy.

My question was this: Is not being notable a reason for deletion?

And I now refer to the following "reason for deletion":

I note and assert that this line is currently the most definitive statement on whether or not being non-notable is a reason for deletion. (If not, please simply redirect me to a more definitive statement which I may have missed.)

The reason I believe it needs clarification is this: it does not include WP:N in the list.

I believe that this means that those who originally wrote it, and many of those who have expressly or impliedly agreed with it since, meant and interpreted it as meaning only that the notability sub-guidelines were reasons for deletion, and that non-notability for regular articles (such as Commit_charge, for example), is not a reason for deletion.

I believe that either WP:N needs to be included in this list of notability guidelines, or it needs to be specifically excluded.

Whatever the answer, I expect that the result will be controversial (unless I've just missed something, of course!), so I suggest we discuss it on this page until a consensus is reached, before changing the policy page. -- BenBildstein 05:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that the words "notability guideline" are linked to {{Notabilityguide}} (via a redirect), and that WP:N is the first item listed in that template. The implication is clear - WP:N is included, the others are examples of subject specific guidelines. GRBerry 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. In that case, I suggest we include WP:N in the list explicitly, to avoid doubt or confusion (such as mine). -- BenBildstein 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting non-notable content

I believe there is a problem with the list of "reasons for deletion". One of the listed reasons for deletion is "subject fails to meet the the relevant notability guideline". This seems to be the only reason on the list that would allow the deletion of content that is appropriate for Wikipedia. It seems to me that every other item on the list refers to content that should be removed from Wikipedia, while there is no reason to remove non-notable content.

I am not making an anti-notability argument. In fact, it was reading User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_things that made me realise this.

Let me clarify what I am saying. First, I believe everyone will agree that the other items on the reason list pertain to things that should be entirely removed from Wikipedia. However, the notability guideline says specifically that "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". That is, when a topic is not notable, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia; instead, it means it doesn't belong on its own page.

So unlike the other reasons for deletion, when we delete something purely because it is non-notable, we may be removing valid, useful, verifiable, encyclopedic, NPOV, properly sourced, well written content that is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.

I propose we change the policy on handling non-notable pages. I think the policy should be to merge the content of pages that have non-notable topics into other pages, so as not to lose this clearly valuable content. I believe this is more in line with the notability guideline. This would also necessitate changing Template:Notability to make the options "expand or merge", instead of "expand or delete".

Is this the right place to start a discussion on this proposed change? Can someone tell me what is the best way to progress this issue? -- BenBildstein 07:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the rare case a non-notable topic is brought up for deletion that contains well-sourced information that is relevant to a broader topic, it is usually merged to the appropriate article. This is a solution for a problem that does not exist, to my knowledge. Vassyana 08:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that has semi-agreement :)
Actually, I would think that every time a non-notable topic is deleted, we're deleting worthwhile content. The content policies say nothing about which topics are appropriate, and the notability guideline says nothing about content. But yes, if both the topic and the content are inappropriate, then both should be removed. -- BenBildstein 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your initial statement is self-contradictory. Subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guideline are, de facto, inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest you spend a day or two at new page patrol to see what the actual problem is here. >Radiant< 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(I'm not sure which statement you are saying is contradictory, but...) I believe you are wrong that "subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines are, de facto, inappropriate for Wikipedia." See WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, which is also quoted below. Such subjects are not "notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article", but "Notability guidelines [...] do not specifically regulate the content of articles". And also: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." -- BenBildstein 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of the term saying that notability doesn't limit article content isn't saying that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted, AIUI, it's saying that as long as the subject of an article is notable, anything relevant to that subject can go in the article regardless of whether that particular info is notable. That is, notability limits the subject of the article, but not the content. SamBC(talk) 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As an addendum to the above, the content is limited, but chiefly by verifiability coupled with neutral point of view.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the relevant part of the notability guideline:
"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."
I believe this makes it quite clear. I agree that it doesn't say that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted. I'm saying that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted. If there is content that's only failing is being written into a page that's topic doesn't satisfy WP:N, I say we should make every effort not to delete that content. -- BenBildstein 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There is already guidance that it's better to merge, and possibly redirect, in many cases. Of course, the information still has to be verifiable and NPOV. SamBC(talk) 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of AfDs in which a merge or transwiki was the outcome. If the information is appropriate somewhere, but "on Wikipedia as a standalone article" is not that somewhere, those options are already available, either to move it to a parent or related article, or to move it off Wikipedia and to another project entirely. However, the vast majority of things deleted for non-notability fit neither category—they're not appropriate for any parent article (and may not be sourced at all) and aren't appropriate for any other project either. Just because information is verifiable, not original research, and neutral does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate for its own article, or for any article. Remember, we're all editors here, and an important function of an editor is to cut. Deleting and removing things is not in and of itself bad, it's just as necessary a maintenance task as copyediting and correcting misspellings. What notability helps to do is answer the question "Alright, we know we need to cut sometimes, but what should we cut?" The answer is, "Things no reliable sources have bothered to take any significant note of." We reflect reliable sources, we don't second-guess them, and we're not a first publisher. So when reliable sources have chosen not to publish anything or much of anything about something, we reflect that by not doing so either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • BenBildstein, your logic has a fundamental mistake. While it is true that, under some circumstances, the content of a page on a non-notable subject can be merged into a page on a notable subject, in the overwhelming majority of cases it cannot, either as a result of guidelines on trivia or because no encyclopedic topic that could contain that information exists. While it is true that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, neither do they expand article content; content that is relevant only to a non-notable subject would have no home on Wikipedia with or without these guidelines. I could write a hundred-page article about every marking on my cat, providing detailed photographs, documentation from the vet, and careful verification of every point. The topic of my cat would still be unencyclopedic; though AFD is, under the current system, instructed to consider places where such information could be moved, it is plain that in cases such as these there is no place for it to go. If you think that this is an odd or unlikely example, you have not spent much time on newpages patrol. Additionally, you are wrong that notability is the only criteria that could potentially delete useful information. A hoax could contain a paragraph of truth; an article on a newly-coined word can often be merged into a larger article about slang. More to the point, all of WP:NOT is given as a valid reason for deletion... try looking over that some time. Plenty of articles that violate WP:NOT could contain (or even consist primarily of) information that could nonetheless be merged into an article on a more appropriate topic. This is why merging exists as an option on AFD... in all of these cases, though, as with notability, deletion must be preserved for cases when no appropriate target for merging exists, when existing content elsewhere is already superior, or for when merging is not a useful option for one of a number of other reasons. I also suggest you go back and read some of the older debates about notability... it has a long history, and a great deal of discussion went into the guidelines as they exist today. With so much discussion, you're unlikely to be able to argue them away by finding a point that has not already been discussed to death. --Aquillion 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave this for now, and try to come back to it when I feel more qualified. One way or the other. -- BenBildstein 02:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think non-notable articles when judged as such through vote, should not be deleted. Instead either replace the article (keeping the history) with a standard "Not Notable" page or move it to a "non-notable" section if keeping such articles around could clutter up the namespace. Some stuff may later turn out to be actually notable. I find it strange that the wikipedia keeps trivia on obscure tv shows and deletes many articles which seem to be important enough for _many_ people to argue about their deletion. You lose history and data when you delete, and the deletion process is fallible - sock puppets, censorship etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.62.101 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a serious problem with Wikipedia's current deletion policy that needs to be fixed with something like this. A huge problem is that the admins are elitist in determining that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes them. This is not acceptable when it's an article about a website that gets tens of thousands of regular viewers. Dozens of very popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to the internet traffic tracking service, had articles about them deleted by wikipedia.

In short, any website, blog or webcomic that a decent number of people may come to wikipedia to learn about deserves to not have the article on that website, blog or webcomic deleted and thus have nothing turn up from their search.

Wikipedia is fantastic in that it lets you find straightforward information about any topic. Wikipedia's contributors shouldn't be deleting articles about blogs and webcomics that recieve a decent amount of traffic just because they personally don't know about them. This is the definition of elitism. And it also weakens wikipedia's ability to serve as a useful straightforward reference on virtually any topic.

The single greatest strength of wikipedia is that it contains so much more information than brittanica and every other encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. This is a strength that should be emphasized and encouraged, not actively undermined by elitist "contributors" who decide that just because they personally haven't heard of a blog or a webcomic, means that the thousands that do don't matter, and that the dozens of visitors who stumble onto the blog or webcomic anew and who turn to wikipedia for information about it deserve to have nothing come back on the search.

I can't mention how many times I come to wikipedia nowadays to learn about a new site with a lot of users and contributors only to have no article come back because an elitist editor decided that the article on that site/blog/webcomic wasn't important enough to be included. Pushy elitist editors deleting articles left and right, this is a problem that's worse than ever.

I regularly contributed to wikipedia since it's inception. But I've stopped contributing as a result of this and have actively encouraged others to do so as well. And that's going to continue until wikipedia changes it's policy on deleting articles left and right.

People who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site deserve to find it. That's the entire point of wikipedia, to provide information on things that brittanica was too limited in scope to cover.

I adored the Wikipedia when it was first launched and I contributed to a number of articles, some extensively, and always anonymously. The Wikipedia then was a riot of contributors, each adding bits and pieces to the articles they were familiar with, with nary an admin or editor in sight. The Wikipedia was about articles and contributors. It was a fascinating source of information and the talk pages were often incredibly informative. You could have honest to god discussions there! You could build up an article with two or three anonymous contributors on the talk pages over days (or sometimes weeks). The Wikipedia WORKED.

The current Wikipedia is a very different beast--hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" who are more concerned with personal politics, the bureacracy of the beast, and minutae like "wikification" than contributing to articles. Nowadays the Wikipedia is all about the Wikipedia. Articles and contributors are caught in a vast bureaucratic clusterfuck. Articles in particular are "turf" to be fought over, to the great detriment of the people who actually contribute to them or use them. Edits are about notches in your belt, not adding content. Knowing an admin is more important than knowing your subject. Making an edit nowadays prompts threats and frequent reversions (or lockings) for no damned reason. It doesn't have to be controversial. You can correct the spelling of a species name and get chewed out for it. The talk pages, far from being about building consensus and putting togethr good articles, are bully pulpits for admins and connected editors. The NPOV and common courtesy have gone right out the window on talk pages, as shown by all the hyperbolic and downright paranoid rantings by admins here shows. "Hate site"? Please. I've seen hate sites, and Bagley/Byrn ain't it. "Jihad"? You must be joking.

Nowadays the Wikipedia community seems obsessed with the tangental side of the wiki: voting up admins, arguing about (usually pointless) policy, locking and unlocking articles, and pointless editing to enforce editorial unity ("This article has a trivia section--triva sections are discouraged because they're fun and interesting. Please consider rewriting the article to bury all these nifty facts under an avalanche of stilted faux academic prose in the main body of the article. Failing that, just delete the trivia, since traditional encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and we're bound to follow a fifteen-hundred year old dead tree paradigm, never mind that we're a twenty-first century hypertext website.") and stylistic monotony. The Wikipedia DOESN'T work. The Wikipedia is broken.

I'm inclined to think that the increasing toxicity of the community, coupled with power-drunk admins and people obsessed with the bureaucratic way of getting things done has finally gotten to the point where it drive more people away than come in.

There was a time when I logged over 1000 edits a month. Now I rarely bother to visit - not because there’s less work to do, but rather, because so much of what goes on there is unpleasant crap.

A frequently cited criticism of Wikipedia's Deletion policy is the manner in which an admin determines that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes the article written about the topic. As a result of this policy, several articles about popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to Alexa, many of which won critical praise had articles about them deleted by wikipedia. <references/http://www.webcomicker.com/?p=33> <references/http://comixtalk.com/terrence_markswikipedia_and_y> It was viewed as not acceptable my many webcomic authors and readers that articles about websites and webcomics that have tens of thousands of regular viewers are deemed as candidates for deletion as a result of an admin who is personally unfamiliar with the comic. Others found it counter intuitive that because of Wikipedia's deletion policy, users who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site were unable to find it. This seemed to go against what was traditionally considered one of Wikipedia's greatest assests, it's ability to provide information on topics that professional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia brittanica were too limited in scope to cover. Others view as a sign that Wikipedia has become too hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" and Wikipedia itself is becoming burdened by the bureacracy of of it's editing staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.41.35 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why there should not be an article for every blog and webcomic that has a few thousand visitors should be pretty obvious: Wikipedia does not exist to promote anyone's website, products or services. I've tagged a few articles about webcomics for deletion because they failed to assert their notability in any way. Actually, I usually tag garage bands that have never toured, signed with any record label, or had their music played on radio station outside of their hometown. Then there are small businesses that have no significant national or international sales, and have received no media coverage. Then there are the biographies of a living person who has no notable accomplishments. I've tagged a number of articles about people who currently have a job, some kids and a dog. So? I've even seen articles about people in their teens and early 20s whose primary accomplishment in life so far has been graduating from high school or university! Whatever the case, the article is usually created by the owner/artist to promote themselves, since basically no one has ever heard of them. There are six billion living people, tens of millions of small businesses, millions of bands, and thousands of webcomics. If a webcomic becomes famous enough that its content starts to be quoted or imitated, fan sites appear, and merchandise starts to be sold in stores, such as Homestar Runner, then it deserves an article. If a webcomic is only read by you and other people who go to the author's university, its scope or appeal is too narrow to merit an article on Wikipedia. If we lower the requirements to allow a biography of any person who has ever had a family, or an article about every blog, comic, band and business that operates out of someone's basement, Wikipedia could easily have 100 million articles by 2009! That would really mess with search results, and make it difficult for readers to tell which businesses/bands/blogs/comics have national or international appeal, and which ones have an audience mostly composed of people who live in the artist's dorm.
Wikipedia policies sometimes need improvement, and everyone is welcome to participate in that discussion. As for claiming that articles about webcomics are being deleted by elitist Admins... don't you think it's a bit elitist of you to think that you can determine which webcomics are notable enough to deserve an article? If you're an expert on webcomics, please feel free to contribute content to the webcomic article. Maybe you could add a list of "popular" webcomics that might have appeal to fans of the genre, but aren't notable enough to deserve their own article yet. As for your perception that the articles are being removed at the whim of individual Admins, that's probably not true in most cases. With the exception of articles that are so obviously frivolous that they qualify for speedy deletion (patent nonsense, vandalism, etc), articles are