Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) →CSD procedure clarification: read the talk page too |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Essay, seeking feedback: new section |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
::and the other part of the problem is that some inexperienced NPPatrollers do not actually realize they ''can'' remove the tag, and simply leave it on. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
::and the other part of the problem is that some inexperienced NPPatrollers do not actually realize they ''can'' remove the tag, and simply leave it on. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*Now that there is a contest this speedy delete button, we ahve many objections on talk pages. I suspect that many of these are from people who would never otherwise edit Wikipedia but count as readers. Admins should read the talk pages objections too too see how controversial it is. THere are not often policy based arguments supplied there though. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
*Now that there is a contest this speedy delete button, we ahve many objections on talk pages. I suspect that many of these are from people who would never otherwise edit Wikipedia but count as readers. Admins should read the talk pages objections too too see how controversial it is. THere are not often policy based arguments supplied there though. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Essay, seeking feedback == |
|||
I've been working on [[User:Tryptofish/Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions]]. Feedback prior to moving it into the mainspace would be welcome (there, rather than here). Thanks! --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:52, 5 August 2011
Archives |
---|
|
Deleting your user page?
This article apears to offer no information on this. I assume editors have control over deletion over their userpage or drafts of articles tied to their userpage i.e. pages of the form user/article. I have upgraded an article from a draft on my user page to an actual article and now would like to delete the draft as I think it is now a waste of space. --MATThematical (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just place a {{db-userreq}} at the top of the page and a sysop should be by shortly to delete it (unfortunately the "delete" button is unavailable for non-sysops even on your user pages, alas). wp:u1 has more about this kind of request. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Should good faith articles which are deleted be userfied as Standard Operating Procedure.
There is an alarming hemorhage of editors away from WMF and it seems that one reason is that people feel shut down when their articles are deleted. Sometimes editors delete new articles on sight which were live drafts, or for various reasons which are not quite correct. In many such cases, the articles are properly deleted, but they are salvagable. Under current policy, the burden is on the hapless user, often a newbie, to track down an admin who can undelete. I propose a guideline that encourages user-fying as the preferred default disposition of deleted articles. Any thoughts? (Oops omitted tildes Bard गीता 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC))
- I'd be dubious unless good-faith were stringently defined. Spammers may argue that they thought in good faith that they were permitted to advertise their penis-enlargement services here; authors of hagiographies of their favorite unsigned boy bands, ditto. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. Maybe the guideline policy should be modified to suggest admin discretion, basically encouraging them to consider doing so if in their judgement it is a good faith attempt to create an article...?
- More direct response to your point, let's say rather than strictly defined, leave it to broad discretion of the admin?
- Alternatively,maybe deleted pages could carry a notice for say 24 or 48 hours helping newbies figure out how to recover the text and admins could be encouraged not to delete new pages if they are not going to be online immediately after the deletion?
- Or perhaps even admins might put up a warning template much like speedy delete templates? Bard गीता 23:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- As we say in the article space, citation needed. Every time the issue of deletion comes up the current rate of inflow/outflow of editors is brandished as a reason to do XYZ. Show me the data. Show me some compelling data driven argument supporting the claim that article deletion is driving net outflow. Until then I'm totally unwilling to go along. Protonk (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here are some numbers regarding retention of new editors. To be clear, I don't present these to prove a point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Heck no. This was proposed just a few months ago too and also totally flopped. Very few deleted articles are sourcable enough to be retained on Wikipedia in any capacity, and the last thing we need are thousands of unsourced articles which will receive little to no scrutiny as they're in userspace. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Data or not, some common sense ideas come to mind here. With respect to userification, admins (not to mention the original tagger) already have the option of choosing to userify on a case-by-case basis (when the article really does have encyclopedic potential, and not in every case), without the need to codify rules about doing so. More broadly, CSD taggers as well as AfD discussants should (as a matter of good judgment, again not requiring further codification) be attentive to WP:BITE as they go about their work. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- No. Good faith contributors should be thanked, certainly, but no, unsuitable material should not be put in userspace if the user has not even asked for that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 81#Speedy userfication (November 2010) is the most recent proposal that I found. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting...it seems that (1) the preponderance of the deletions are little more than that, but that (b) there is a minority of articles that are salvagable, (c) there is a shared concern over WP:BITE It seems that a problem is that useried articles are nevertheless searchable on google, bling, etc. Which, and I am sure that OrangeMike and others will agree, is not a desirable result. Maybe there could be (1) a more thorough post-deletion notification of deleted users, via a template, of a process for recovery of their writing via either userification or email, which would keep it off our domain, or (2) a more explicit warning to people building a new article that if the article is deleted, they may have difficulty recovering their written copy. Bard गीता 04:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, the most recent one was Wikipedia:Wiki_Guides/Change_CSD_to_userspace_drafts which closed less than 2 months ago at 5 for, 36 against. This is clearly not something the community would stand for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Given the number of times I've had to delete, and even suppress, unacceptable userspace "articles" - most of which show up as top hits in search engines - I think this is a bad idea. Risker (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be time to revisit the noindexing of userspace. Give users the option to use {{INDEX}} (a few insist their pages should be findable), but by default the average bits of jetsam and flotsam don't turn up in search engines. Rd232 talk 11:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- There needs to be a distinction between articles that need to really be deleted and articles that are simply unacceptable in their current form; articles which should be accessible, with no-indexing, for reference. Here are three examples of such articles.
- WP:Articles for deletion/Radio Sandwell is one of 100 radio stations in the UK with a "community radio license" and Radio Sandwell was the first such radio station to be removed from mainspace after an AfD. The current consensus is that the article needs one more "decent" source to be restored to mainspace.
- WP:Articles for deletion/Kippax Uniting Church is another article that barely failed AfD and can be expected to be restored to mainspace.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MHG Systems shows the story of a brilliant Finnish software engineer by way of Pakistan being driven off of Wikipedia. The article was deleted shortly after I was accused of adding "high quality reference Wikipedia formatting...revealed...for what it is." Two weeks ago, I wanted to review the Google translate I used for a Russian press release referenced at MHG Systems but could not do so, I see no purpose to letting only the admins have access to this material. Unscintillating (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Alternatives to deletion
WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD) is often cited as Wikipedia policy due to its position on this page. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:ATD. Compare to WP:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion (WP:BEFORE).
User:Jclemens made this revision to the WP:Deletion policy#Merging subsection: "Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally are merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear." (diff) Considering ATD's status, I think these examples (including those present before Jclemens's edit) are more appropriate for listing at WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, an essay tagged with {{supplement}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- So you're objecting to the change because you believe it expands the policy based rationale for merging... is that correct? Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- While I would describe it in different words, that's close enough. I think that an AfD comment like "Merge Fictional element X to a list as generally done per WP:ATD." should be considered a WP:VAGUEWAVE rather than a "policy-based argument" and that the change chips away at that. I have no idea of overall outcomes, but I do see fictional elements deleted despite lists being available and sometimes the lists themselves being deleted. I have been concerned with references to ATD for some time; for example, see the prompt for WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January 2011). Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd rather thought it strengthened the expectation that if there's a good place for content to be merged, it should not routinely be deleted, no matter how people phrased their belief that it shouldn't exist as a separate article. ATD is about defining this in policy; OUTCOMES is about describing how such merges are done (e.g., elementary schools to their districts) Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- That depends on one's definition of a "good place" – some content just shouldn't be merged, even if an obvious merge/redirect target exists. Do you think that non-notable fictional elements are a) generally up-merged or b) routinely deleted? The new sentence would fit in OUTCOMES, as it includes classes of articles that are generally kept, merged (with typical merge targets), and deleted. WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Celebrities echoes the sentence here on celebrities' family members. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any opinion on changing "generally" (indicating something probable) to "may" (possible)? I think examples are good to mention, but I think that "generally" should be moved to OUTCOMES. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- That depends on one's definition of a "good place" – some content just shouldn't be merged, even if an obvious merge/redirect target exists. Do you think that non-notable fictional elements are a) generally up-merged or b) routinely deleted? The new sentence would fit in OUTCOMES, as it includes classes of articles that are generally kept, merged (with typical merge targets), and deleted. WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Celebrities echoes the sentence here on celebrities' family members. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd rather thought it strengthened the expectation that if there's a good place for content to be merged, it should not routinely be deleted, no matter how people phrased their belief that it shouldn't exist as a separate article. ATD is about defining this in policy; OUTCOMES is about describing how such merges are done (e.g., elementary schools to their districts) Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- While I would describe it in different words, that's close enough. I think that an AfD comment like "Merge Fictional element X to a list as generally done per WP:ATD." should be considered a WP:VAGUEWAVE rather than a "policy-based argument" and that the change chips away at that. I have no idea of overall outcomes, but I do see fictional elements deleted despite lists being available and sometimes the lists themselves being deleted. I have been concerned with references to ATD for some time; for example, see the prompt for WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January 2011). Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
How to handle the case of a remade article created after a AFD ending in merge?
My Little Pony Friendship is Magic cult following was taken to AFD with the end result of "merge" back into the main article My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. I helped on the merge, and incorporated some new articles that came to light on the cult following including mention in Wired and Time, but since stand by the assessment that it length of the current article is so short that there's no need to break out the fandom yet (eg, it is not like Star Trek and Trekkie where both articles are easy nearly SIZE limits. That article's creator mentioned s/he was going to be remaking the page with better sourcing using what I had added to the the main show page, creating a user draft and then moving that into Cult following of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which pretty much duplicates the current section "Reception and cult following". I warned them that it wasn't really the sourcing that was at issue, but just that separately out the short fandom section from a short show article was frown on, but they continued with this. I don't believe this editor is getting that its not the sourcing (even if it is better now) but that its simply a matter of better organization of material in one article instead of two.
Now, if this was the case of a deleted article, I would call that new article substantially the same one that the AFD had reviewed and would seek CSD g4 means to fix the issue. But with a merge result, that's different. Is there any process that is like CSD G4 that would apply to the case of a merged article or is the only option to seek out a new consensus via discussing the possibilities of a merge? (I don't want the new article deleted, but I ideally want the merge w/ redirect to stick from the previous AFD). --MASEM (t) 12:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would follow the spirit of WP:G4 in cases like this generally; if the new article substantially duplicates the old, the original decision (i.e. the AfD) applies and the new article can be merged/redirected without the need for further procedural steps or discussions. That said, can does not imply should, and the main priority should be to give articles to topics that deserve them; there is good reason to believe that in this case the sub-topic of the cult following is notable in itself due to the spate of recent focused coverage. In summary, you would be justified in redirecting, but you probably shouldn't. Skomorokh 13:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Help me clarify the chronology here: If one or more new independent RS came to light after the merge decision was reached, and the "new" article on the old topic/name has sufficient independent RS that deal non-trivially with the subject, G4 is entirely inappropriate, and even starting another AfD may be unproductive. Contra Skomorokh, there is no such thing as "the spirit" of a CSD: if there's not a clear-cut unambiguous match (same text, not just same topic) and no immediate harm that would justify IAR, then a novel discussion referencing the prior one is the best route to go. If it's a slam-dunk with only the editor who broke out the material again objecting, that'll be simple enough. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the clear and narrow strictures of the speedy deletion policy. What I meant by "the spirit of G4" was something like "if a page has been through a consensus process where it is decided to fix it in a certain state, that decision can be applied to pages that are close copies of the original page". Skomorokh 16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- To be clear, the reason to merge was not because of a lack of sourcing or notability, it was because the topic really was best organized within the larger topic of the show given the current state of both articles. While new sources have come since the AFD to further boost the notability of the cult following, it is still bad organization with the state of both articles to split them as such, in the spirit of the arguments of the original AFD. It is, essentially, the same article (though I've reprosed and sourced certain facets better), but still suffers the problems addressed in the AFD. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- If that's all that the issue is, then local consensus should probably govern. While it may look stupid to outsiders, if the primary editors of the article want to split out a subtopic that can both stand on its own with adequate sourcing, or be included within the parent article without violating SIZE, then it's really up to them. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:ND3 The consensus from the AFD is extant until it is voided by another discussion so a further redirect and requesting protection if necessary is appropriate without further discussion. The idea is that the user wanting to restore the article has to find a consensus for the unmerge on an article talk page before they can do this. Consensus can change - but only after a further discussion of some kind. Spartaz Humbug! 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- ... Except that that's an essay, and not consistent with other post-AfD actions. If a deletion discussion results in a "delete" outcome, and new independent RS'es come to light, anyone can recreate the article without needing anyone's permission to do so, because the objection that led to the AfD has been addressed. That essay presupposes that a "merge" discussion would need a new discussion somewhere to evaluate that past consensus, even in the light of newly discovered independent RS'es, which makes no sense. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- But a merge isn't an administrative action so if the undoing of the redirect were reverted then the onus would be on the user wanting to recreate the article to establish that the consensus to merge had changed through a discussion. Bold means one undoing of the redirect then its time to talk. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- ... Except that that's an essay, and not consistent with other post-AfD actions. If a deletion discussion results in a "delete" outcome, and new independent RS'es come to light, anyone can recreate the article without needing anyone's permission to do so, because the objection that led to the AfD has been addressed. That essay presupposes that a "merge" discussion would need a new discussion somewhere to evaluate that past consensus, even in the light of newly discovered independent RS'es, which makes no sense. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Quarterly update
It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
CSD procedure clarification
There's a discussion at WT:CSD#Procedure_for_contested_speedies that relates to this page. We are talking about more cleanly differentiating between what we should do if the author objects to the CSD (e.g., says the article isn't spam) vs. if some independent editor objects to the CSD (e.g., says the NPPer screwed up when he tagged the article as "unambiguous spam").
Generally, editors feel that the procedure outlined here is correct if the author objects, but unclear about what to do if someone else does. With the exception of attack pages, people generally feel that objections by independent editors should be treated like a contested prod (=that is, they can be sent to AFD, but not speedy deleted). Since CSD criteria are based on the idea that we're only speedy-deleting things that are "uncontestably" or "unambiguously" (spam, attacks, copyright violations, etc) then this seems reasonable enough to me.
In the category of complexities, we may need to assume that all objections from IPs or non-autoconfirmed accounts are socks of the author. There's also some concern about pointy-headed disruption, i.e., that an editor may someday take the notion of objecting to every single CSD, and we need to leave enough room for the admins to ignore that.
If you have opinions about how to clarify this, please feel free to join the discussion. We need to decide both what to say and which page(s) to say it on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ideally an objection which does not merit removing the tag outright (which any editor aside from the author may do...if the policy hasn't changed radically since I became an admin) should be given the same consideration regardless of the source. If I make an article on a band and object to a speedy is it any different than if a friend makes an article on a band and I object to that speedy? Obviously the author of an article inherently objects to a controversial speedy, but if they make an argument then that argument should be addressed on the merits. As a matter of practice I would prefer that editors patrolling the CSD queue who feel strongly enough to object to a speedy should consider simply reviewing the deletion and declining it. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is while most of us believe that removing the tag outright—something that "any editor aside from the author may do"—should stop the CSD, some of the admins appear to believe that removal of a speedy tag (by someone other than the author) is something they should feel free to completely ignore. It's not absolutely clear on this page what should happen to an non-author-contested speedy. This policy does not directly say, "Any editor aside from the author may remove the tag, and if some admin still thinks the page should be deleted, then that admin should take it to AFD, not just delete it as if there had been no objection in the first place." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Now that there is a contest this speedy delete button, we ahve many objections on talk pages. I suspect that many of these are from people who would never otherwise edit Wikipedia but count as readers. Admins should read the talk pages objections too too see how controversial it is. THere are not often policy based arguments supplied there though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Essay, seeking feedback
I've been working on User:Tryptofish/Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions. Feedback prior to moving it into the mainspace would be welcome (there, rather than here). Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)