Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1

Word lists

I don't think all words on word lists should be here. All those words and their definitions should be on Simple English Wiktionary, but many of them are not encyclopedic. Therefore, whether they should be moved there (meaning deleted here) or placed on both should not be dependent on them being on a word list, but should be dependent on whether or not they are encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Simple talk#Project direction for related discussion. --Cromwellt|talk 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wiktionary should not exist. Simple English is not a language. -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wiktionary has as much right to exist as Simple English Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are of separate languages. If simple English is not a language, SEWikipedia should not exist either. For more explanations of its validity, see the simple talk link above and Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia, where you have still not answered my arguments. I welcome any response, even after all this time. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Immediate deletion

I'm renaming "immediate deletion" into "fast deletion", as the word "fast" is more simpler than the word "immediate". If anyone objects, feel free to comment.--TBCΦtalk? 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's going to be changed to that, why not just call it speedy deletion so that there's some consistency across wikis? J Di 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, "Quick deletion" sounds better as "quick" is a BE850 word whereas "fast" and "immediate" are not.--TBCΦtalk? 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the sound of "Quick deletion", but if it's a BE 850 word, I guess it's the best choice. The category changes I made earlier are going to have to be corrected... J Di 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think "quick deletion" sounds slightly better. btw the regular deletion time is actually 7 days, not 5, unless you all think 7 is too long, then we can perhaps agree to shorten it to 5 days. Blockinblox - talk 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

RfD duration

One part of this says 5 day discussions on RfDs, another says 7 days. I've always kept them for 7, has this been revised? Archer7 - talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. "Five to seven days, or until there is enough agreement on what to do." That makes sense. Archer7 - talk 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A4 - notability

As writen, the rule A4 only applies to 4 specific things (and sub groups of those 4). Would it not be better to expand it to any subject of an article? Right now, to delete an article on a sport no one has ever heard of (say, Penguin bashing for distance which is a video game and not a sport) we shouldnt actually use notability as a valid reason because it is not people, companies, websites or groups (people a second time). By shifting it to something like "The subject the article is about is not notable" we leave it open to any subject someone might want to consider posting. Using "for example, a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content" provides more information of what it applies to but does not limit the rule from being applied to any specific topic that might come up. -- Creol(talk) 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that A4 should be expanded to include any subject of the article. Wodup 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A4 after a quick deletion

Should A4 be altered to indicate that if there's been a previous QD, the next step should be RfD? It seems that that is already what users agree, but it's not in the policy. It could read "...If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous quick deletion or RfD, the article should be discussed at RfD instead..." Wodup 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there. That would be more helpful than what's already there. Jordanhatch - talk 09:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

At the comparable page on en there is a section that reads:

• "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."

This is not addressed by our policy at the moment, but I suggest we have something more specific like a 5 or 10 day waiting period minimum before relisting kept articles. Any thoughts or comments on this proposal? Blockinblox - talk 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a bad idea. Although I think there should be a distinction between requests that are closed after a full week of discussion and those that are closed early due to the requesting editor withdrawing their request. Or perhaps we should somehow disallow a withdrawal of a request if the majority of votes cast so far have been to delete. I don't know. But I see a clear difference in requests that are closed this way as opposed to letting them ride out their full week. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Discussion has taken place on Simple Talk, about the addition of a new criterion to the speedy deletion criteria. I wanted to make sure we have everyone's notice there. Your comments are appreciated. - Huji ^reply 16:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Typical duration of an RfD

In two different sections of this policy, two different timespans (five day vs seven day) where given as the typical duration of an RfD. I changed both to "seven" days. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Huji ^reply 16:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new section and additional deletion reason

A question has come up on a quick deletion that tends to follow practice, but no specific policy. In the list of deletion rules there is no set rule on "Talk pages that have nothing to do with the article." Talk pages are there to discuss the article, not so much the subject of the article. Often we get people creating talk pages to talk about the subject (ie. Bearded dragon: "I have a sick dragon, what should I do?") Normally these are quick deleted under either G6 (general maintenance) or just labeld "Talk page has nothing to do with the article". It might be best to include it as a policy reason for QD. As we do not have a section on talk pages, I would also suggest creating a Talk page section and importing G8 (talk page where no main page exists) as T1. We have a "T1" for templates, but I doubt that has ever been used and would be fine as TMP1 or some such. Also Template 1 can already be deleted under G10 - Attack pages. -- Creol(talk) 07:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested proposal addition/changes

General rules - All pages

8: Talk pages of pages that do not exist can be deleted - move to Talk pages

(renumber 9-12)

Talk pages

This section applies to talk pages for pages in all namespaces except the User namespace. It does not apply to "User talk" namespace pages.

1. Talk pages of pages that do not exist can be deleted, unless they contain discussion on deletion that can't be found anywhere else. Subpages of a talk page can only be deleted under this rule if their top-level page does not exist. However, this cannot be used on user talk pages or talk pages of images on Commons.
2. Talk pages which do not deal with the article they are for can be deleted. This includes talk pages where the only information on the page is to discuss the just topic of the article and not how the discussion should affect the article.

Support

1. Strong support. This proposal shouldn't have been ignored. Let's get rid of pages like this. -- Marawe (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Done well, that page no longer exists. I agree that such pages should be deleted rather than blanked. fr33kman ^talk 01:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   That page was already delete-able under G2, as a test page. No modification to policy is needed for those. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Support per Marawe. We have another option in our hands as well, that of removing vandalism and adding a {{talkheader}}. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

   Deleting pure vandalism is already covered under G3. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would just clear the vandalism and blank the page. Unless the talk page has personally identifiable information, libel, attacks, or the such. Any editor can blank the page, and that spreads the work around. I however, won't challenge any admin who deletes a page in this manner whether or not it is a Quick Deletion criteria. I just don't want to *have* to see these at CAT:QD. I don't think we *need* to delete them. Blanking works just as fine. I'm not really at all comfortable deleting page history of vandalism, we have a good many editors who would need to see such things. For example, when looking at a suspecting sock, or vandal pattern, one need not be an admin. But if the page is deleted, only an admin can see the page history, and effectively, that vandal's contributions are not going to show in the contributions. There are many smart editors who are not admins, who can do this type of work. I'd rather that history be available. That way, it is not just the administrators doing that type of work. Keep those histories available. Also, I'm a little concerned with the hype to delete talk pages. I ran across this QD, one which I declined to delete. This is a valid point brought up about the article. One I intend to fix for the article. We ought not be deleting those either. This is the version of that talk page after I autosigned for the IP and responded. Let us thoughtfully consider the full consequences of talk page deletion. There is no harm to the server, the community, or the project in keeping talk pages, and just blanking them. Again, I'll reiterate that I will delete attacks, personally identifiable information, and libel... but the rest, should just be blanked. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I can't imagine any scenarios that would fall under the proposed T2 entry that aren't already covered by existing entries. Even en.wiki's CSD criteria keeps just a single catch-all for talk pages (G8). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Like EVula, most (if not all) situations would be already covered by other entries. -Djsasso (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose the new second one per EVula and Djsasso. Oppose renumbering G8 because it applies to talk pages generally, not simply pages in the Talk: namespace. I wouldn't mind expanding our G8 to match en.wiki's G8, though. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove G5

I suggest this be removed. Who cares who created the article, if it's a good article, we're better off all round. Having this Criteria is ridiculously petty and like punishment for daring to edit. Majorly ^talk 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I support removal. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

e/c Yep, no need for it. I'm going to Be Bold and remove it in 5 minutes unless there is objection ;) BG^7even 16:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Same. Now I'll finish declining these speedies. Synergy 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I should add i'll remove it from anything not sysop protected, so someone else will need to do the rest. BG^7even 16:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gone from the del-pol and {{qd}} template. I'll list any others I find ;) BG^7even 16:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Templates

I want to add a criteria to the template. This would be to quick delete unused templates, the same as we use for empty categories. Synergy 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Will there be a restriction for templates that will surely be used in the future? Malinaccier (talk) (review) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have G6?

I think G6 should noy be here. Why? Because wy would an administrator delete a page where they deleting admin was trying to fix a mistake or cleaning up something? TurboGolf 08:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

G6 is the general catch-all for deletions where all other reasons just does not fit. Certain times an page clearly needs to go, but does not quite fit under another category. Improperly named category (possible C1), redirects caused by renaming users after links are fixed, welcome page to a later-identified vandal, vandal created userpage, etc. Most pages can fall under the basic rules, but some are just not covered as it's impossible to think of every conceivable QD reason. G6 give the deleting admin more leeway in dealing with matters at their own discretion rather than having to kick it to an RfA and wait a week when it is an obvious candidate for deletion. --Creol(talk) 08:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the Article deletion rules

Hi there all. I would like to suggest that we add another rule onto the QD reasons for articles. I would like to suggest that we add spam as a reason for quick article deletion. The English Wikipedia, I believe, has a speedy deletion rule for spam pages, and I believe that there is a difference between spam pages and pages created for vandalism purposes. The rule could read something like this:

QD A6: Articles that are clear cases of spam

or something along those lines. What do you guys think? Cheers, Razorflame 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:QD#G11 -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam pages don't always consist of advertising, though... Razorflame 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Any other kind of spam probably falls G3 (Vandalism) or A4 (Notability). Depends what you define as spam... FSM ^Noodly? 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, never mind about this :). I guess we already have it covered :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete hoaxes

Admins often QD complete hoaxes to save time and effort in AFD discussions. I propose to formalize this with the addition of either G13 - complete hoax, or A6 - complete hoax and to remove hoaxes from what is not a QD reason. Comments? fr33kman ^talk 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree--  † CM₁₆  23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's an obvious hoax, then can't it be QD'd as nonsense/vandalism? The point that says that hoaxes cannot be QD'd says that they can't be QD'd if they could be true and are unsourced, but if an article is an obvious hoax, then they can be QD'd. --Fairfield Deleted? 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense is stuff like "blah blah boo boo" and is not the same as a well written article that happens to be a obvious hoax. G1 specifically excludes "things that are fake or impossible". Vandalism is a possibility but the word vandalism always implies a malicious change to Wikipedia. A hoax might not be intended as a malicious change. A hoax could be believed by the editor who creates it but understood by those checking on its veracity to be a hoax and completely false. The current QD reasons specifically exclude hoaxes from being allowed to be QD'd. We at seWP obviously invoke WP:IAR and QD them anyway. I'd prefer to have an actual QD reason for multiple reasons; a) it formalizes the page deletion reasons in the change summary (people looking into a page that's been deleted know why it was deleted without needing to check with the admin, b) it provides a better audit trail, c) it formally gets rid of the "can't QD hoaxes" bit from WP:QD (thereby stopping the use of WP:IAR which by its very nature can be challenged), and d) it provides for an assumption of good faith but still allows the QD of the page without calling it vandalism. fr33kman ^talk 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not registered users personal page quick deletion

Hi, I d' like to tell everybody my personal opinion: "I think that it is bad for our community to have this proposition. Reason:Some IPs are Good faith focused, so we can make different across them and bad IP (most of them are). I agree with deletion of bad IPs's user pages." Thanks for listening, --79.101.68.26 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are static and non-static IP's. If you want a userpage, so create an username. Thanks Barras (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs can change so it is not valid for a single person to try and claim an IP as their own. If you wish a userpage etc, then you need to create an account. It is rather easy and you don't have to give any personal information. -Djsasso (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has an account already, but they were blocked indefinitely. Majorly talk 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, the benefits of checkuser. o-) fr33kman ^talk 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that solves that. -Djsasso (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

New criteria

Since policy is descriptive, it describes what we do... I've added a new criteria A6. We already delete hoaxes, with no objections. So there is now a descriptive criteria for this. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No need. Hoaxes or articles that are false: Articles that do not have sources and are probably not true. Usually these can also be quickly deleted as vandalism or nonsense if the article is obviously nonsense or obviously false, but articles that might be true should be inspected and discussed more. It's already there. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is like painting a wall. Nonsense is "fgh8754ngi54g98hj". Hoax is different. It should have it's own criteria. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You have G2 (test), A4 (not notable), and G6 (housekeeping). I would use G2, it is a test page after all. If you do decide to keep the new criteria, create a QD template to it and add to Twinkle. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Let us use the lastest example :)

• It asserted notability, so it fails A4
• It was not a housekeeping or maint issue, so it fails G6
• It obviously was something much more sinister than a test page, so it failed G2

Which huggle page do I add it to? Are you good with template, I'm not, but I can try. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I will work on a template for it. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Template is complete. To add it to Twinkle, you have to be an admin. I believe Chenzw and EhJJ know how to add it. I'm not sure about Huggle, but you should ask Juliancolton. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to give this a day for reactions/debate before I code it into Twinkle. Let me know what you hear from Chenzw/Juliancolton about Huggle; I can try adding it, but I'm not familiar with that code. EhJJ^TALK 01:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This falls under G3. Adding another criteria is instruction creep. -DJSasso (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert my edits if consensus rules against NVS. Revert here and here. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• @Djsasso: There are no new instructions. This is not instruction creep for that reason. I have seen multiple occasions where a hoax was mislabled as another criterion. This is designed to fix that issue. So, problem sought a solution. See my above argument where the most recent example (available in my deletion logs) failed G2, for the same reason it would fail G3, among others. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• One more comment if I may... this new criteria, which is only descriptive of what we currently do, does not add any extra effort, time, or procedure. It does however, add another dropdown... I've already taken care of that, and Grif has fixed the templates already. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Very short articles

Microchip added the following to the deletion policy:

• Is less than two sentences long. The article is too short to give any useful information or any encyclopedic value; a micro-stub.

Since this is supposed to be policy, bigger changes need discussion...--Eptalon (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. They take months and come to no conclusion. Full endorse addition. Goblin 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

(said this already at ST, but wahey) To be frank, fuck going through deleting the million two line stubs we already have here, just delete new ones as they come up and make it clear we don't want them. Deleting them all would take to to much time and effort that could be put into improving articles. FSM ^Noodly? 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, only from now onwards should they be deleted, not existing ones. Goblin 20:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Also, this discussion should take at minimum 24 hours (no rush, these articles have existed years), so everyone can discuss. And, what's the point of deleting new ones, if those can easily be fixed? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse. We need to be more BOLD. I agree with FSM, time is wasted discussing things. Let's discuss things less, and do something. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Yottie ^=talk= 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote it, I meant it to be "is a one liner", but it isn't very formal talk: "less than two" means that two sentences is fine. — μ 20:55, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with this change. Articles of this size are just useless and we are better off without the article. Majorly talk 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree, as stubs are the starting point of all articles. One sentence can still hold information that the person does not have. We need to stop trying to tear down others work and do some of our own. Having a single line stub does no damage, so what if it comes up in random search, the person will just hit random again. And last time people brought this up and did a bunch of tests to see how often they came up on random, they rarely did. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This ^. ···Lauryn 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been pressing Random a fair bit recently and nearly everything has been tagged as stub or has been a sub-stub. I'll do some 'tests' tomorrow to show why this is needed for new articles. Goblin 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

• Just an idea: Would it be possible to "hide" stubs from coming up by clicking random page? I don't know if this would technically be possible, but I think this would be a good thing and not mess up the radom page with footballers, French/American city stubs.

  No, unfortunately that's not technically possible under the MediaWiki software, short of moving all stubs to a completely different namespace.

• Also, I wouldn't have a problem with deleting very short articles as you know and as I stated on ST and anywhere very often. -Barras ^talk 17:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Couldn't agree more, but must stress it should only be for new articles that haven't been fixed within an X period - they can't be QD'd on sight. (Imo). Goblin 17:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

  If you have time to delete them, then you have time to fix them, no? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  That is pretty much my opinion, if you have time to tag them wait a week and then delete them, then you have time to go to en or google and find a source or write one more single sentence to push it past the QD point. Improve, don' delete. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)