User:Moonriddengirl/Deletions

Although I do so less commonly these days, I once spent the majority of my time addressing speedy deletion candidates or articles listed in deletion debates. If, after reading the specifics below, you're concerned that I have misapplied or am misapplying policy, please bring it up...politely. I will be happy to explain my rationale. If you're wrong, I won't harbor any grudges. If I'm wrong, I really need to know. I never intentionally "ignore all rules" when it comes to deletions, and I do my best to evaluate every candidate for deletion I consider thoroughly. If you are here because I have deleted an article for copyright concerns, please see my main userpage. This page is primarily for deletions that are unrelated to copyright concerns. The purpose of this page is to help new contributors understand our deletion policies and to expand on my own policies regarding deletions and userfying content. I have attempted to write it so that it can be easily understood. If you find it confusing or unclear, let me know. If you want to talk with me about a deletion, please leave your civil message on my talk page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. It is, of course, helpful if you tell me the name of the article that's been deleted. Deletion Deletion policies, general While Wikipedia welcomes contributions from anyone, not every article submitted to Wikipedia is appropriate for inclusion here. We have a number of different policies and guidelines to help us determine what content belongs, and we have several deletion processes to address material that seems to be or is blatantly inappropriate. The most complex of these deletion processes is deletion debate. In this case, when the appropriateness of the article may not be clear-cut or when it does not plainly fit into one of the established speedy deletion criteria, the article is brought before the community for discussion. These discussions, which are not votes but debates based on policies and guidelines, typically last for 5 or more days. At the end, an uninvolved administrator reads the debate and determines what consensus of the community may have been. There are some useful suggestions for contributors to those conversations at AfD Wikietiquette and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Also beneficial may be "common outcomes". Since consensus does not necessarily mean universal agreement, it's not uncommon for one or more participants in an AfD to be unhappy with the outcome. The first thing to consider in that case is probably whether or not the outcome actually does indicate rough consensus, based on a reasonable interpretation of policy, even if not an interpretation that you yourself embraced. If you think the closure didn't reflect consensus or if there are significant policy-based factors that the closing admin seems to have overlooked, you may wish to civilly discuss the matter with the closing admin at his or her talk page. If the two of you cannot agree and you still believe that the closure was out of process, you have recourse to deletion review. Depending on the nature of the debate and its outcome, you may also have the option of writing a new article, but please do not do so unless you are quite sure that your new article can address the concerns raised at the old. If an article has been speedily deleted and a new one created that does not address the concerns, it will be subject to speedy deletion through criterion WP:CSD#G4. Multiple recreations of an article in such a case may well lead to a contributor being blocked or an article title "salted" to prevent restoration. Another frequently used deletion method is "proposed deletion". Articles are PRODded if there is no specific speedy criteria to address them but their deletion is nevertheless believed to be non-controversial. If your article has been "PROD"ded, it will typically be restored to you on your request, unless it is discovered to contain a copyright violation or to constitute libel. For that matter, even if the article wasn't written by you, it can be restored to you on your request. Any administrator may grant a request to restore a PRODded article. If you want one of these back, just let me know.. Speedy deletions The speedy deletion process is the one most frequently encountered by new contributors and the process to which I dedicate considerable time. These criteria are very specific and have been developed to address material that experienced editors recognize as obviously inappropriate. (New contributors who are less familiar with Wikipedia may understandably not realize why the material is inappropriate.) Having your article deleted can feel like a very hostile act. Unless your article was pure vandalism, as in a blatant hoax, it isn't meant to judge your worth as a contributor. However, it often could have been avoided by reading "Your first article", to which every contributor of a new page is directed. (I don't blame you if you didn't read it. I know I shouldn't, but I myself often skip what seems to be "fine print". In this case, though, it's very valuable information.) Articles are generally speedily deleted because they do not address one of our core policies: notability and neutrality are among the more frequent issues. Notability: If you have written an article about a person or group of people (including a band or organization) or about web content, it may have been deleted for failing to include a credible indication that the subject is important or significant in an encyclopedic sense. To truly establish an article, you have to verify that it meets the relevant notability guidelines no matter what its topic by utilizing reliable, independent sources. To address these concerns in a new article, please be sure that your article states what makes its subject important. Note that while an article doesn't have to meet the notability guidelines to pass this criterion, it does need to include a credible assertion of importance. "George is the President of Local High School's senior class" may be some indication that George is important in his high school, but it is not a credible suggestion of encyclopedic importance. Such an article is very likely to be speedily deleted. Sometimes the best thing to do is to wait until George becomes more notable. Other times, you may want to consider including the information in another article that does have encyclopedic notability. Local High School's "Glee Club" may not be notable, but since Local High School probably is, information about the glee club can be included in the school's article. Just be sure to provide sources and present the material neutrally. Neutrality: Articles may be deleted for neutrality concerns if they are too positive, constituting promotion (WP:CSD#G11), or if they are too negative, constituting an attack (WP:CSD#G10; see also "Biographies of Living Persons"). Both of these tend to arise when contributors have a personal interest in the subject of the article that outweighs their ability to add neutral, balanced information about it. Promotional articles are quite common on Wikipedia, as many businesses (corporate or otherwise) wish to include information about themselves and their products on the encyclopedia. This can be a tricky business, and it is discouraged for that reason. It is not impossible, however. It relies on careful sourcing to avoid original research and achieve neutrality. Please review the conflict of interest guideline (and linked documents) for guidance on contributing if this applies to you. The neutrality policy is also helpful. If you believe that you can contribute neutral information on the subject and are unclear how to proceed, please ask. Persistently creating articles that are deleted for neutrality concerns may lead to your account being blocked from editing. In some egregious situations, accounts may be blocked on the first instance, particularly as relates to "attack" pages. Vandalism. If the page you have created is blatantly intended to be disruptive, it may have been deleted as WP:CSD#G3, "vandalism" or "blatantly inappropriate article". This tag may also be used for obvious misinformation. Even if these are added playfully rather than maliciously, they may constitute vandalism. See the policy on vandalism for definitions of vandalism on Wikipedia. Not every contributor to Wikipedia is interested in contributing constructively to the project, and users that continue to add nonsense or unconstructive articles to Wikipedia may be blocked from editing. While administrators and other editors should take care in applying this label, very occasionally a contributor's actions may be misinterpreted. If you feel that yours have, civilly addressing that may be the best way to convince others that your intentions were good. Other common content concerns. Articles that are incomprehensible are usually deleted as "patent nonsense" or "test pages". If you wish to test, please consider using the sandbox. Articles that do not explain what their subject is about may be deleted as "no context". This is meant to be applied only when no further content could be added because no one would be able to understand what the article is about. It is not meant to be applied too soon after creation, though it sometimes is. Articles that lack substantial content may be deleted as "no content". Substantial in this case means that it only has a "see also" section or an external link, a rephrasing of the title or chat-like comments. Again, this is not meant to be applied too soon after creation, but sometimes is. If you have had an article deleted for these reasons, you may wish to consider tagging new articles with {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} to let other editors know that they haven't been abandoned. You might even start them in user subspace until they have enough content to stand. This is particularly a good idea if you don't have sustained time to dedicate to working on a new article. My personal deletion philosophy Pages I have deleted Although I am not an inclusionist per se, I believe that if I can save a legitimate article, I should. I will often stop in the middle of reviewing candidates for speedy deletion to research & repair something. I also believe that the guidelines for CSD should generally be strictly followed. If a deletion is likely to be controversial or if an article does not meet the CSD criteria, it should be addressed through other avenues of the deletion process. If it's a problem that the CSD criteria do not cover a certain type of article, that should be dealt with through proposing alterations to the policy, not by misapplying it. What next? After an article has been deleted If you have had an article deleted by me or another admin, there are several things you can do, either to try to retrieve that content or to start fresh. What you should not do, in most cases, is simply recreate the article with the same content. If you are not the only contributor, you'll be violating the copyright of the article's other contributors by doing so. But even if you are, simply recreating an article that has been deleted can be regarded as disruptive. It's also only likely to create an article that will be swiftly deleted again. If you want to try to write a new article or "fix" the old one so that it meets our inclusion standards, I am willing to discuss with you what steps you might take to bring a deleted article into compliance with policy and guideline. Because Wikipedia has inclusion standards, it may not be possible to bring some articles into compliance. This is particularly a problem with articles deleted for notability concerns. To ensure quality of content, Wikipedia has had to set a standard for what constitutes notability in terms of encyclopedic coverage. If a subject does not meet the threshold, the only option may be to find another host for the material or to wait until it does. Userfication Userficiation is the term we use when a deleted article is restored and moved into your user space. There can be a number of reasons that you would want this material: you might want to move it off Wikipedia for your own future reference (please remember to take the list of authors, too!). You might want to use it to base a new article on that addresses the problems for which it was deleted. Many admins will userfy deleted material on request, and I'm among them. I am willing to restore and move deleted articles to user space for further development as long as they do not violate policies that makes doing so inappropriate. I will not "userfy" copyright violations or attack articles. Admin restoration Some types of deletion can be overturned on the asking: specifically, if your article has been "PROD"ded (see above), any administrator should be willing to return it to article space unless it violates copyright or constitutes an attack or in some other way is blatantly inappropriate for Wikipedia. An administrator who restores such an article will usually notify the contributor who first tagged it for deletion, though, which may result in its being put up for a deletion debate. You'd be well advised to try to fix the problems that resulted in its being nominated in the first place. With other deletion types, an administrator may reconsider his or her handling of the matter, particularly if you reasonably point out why the handling was not according to policy. With a speedy deletion, it might be enough to explain how you can continue with the article to repair it—for instance, adding sourced proof of notability to an article deleted for notability concerns. If you believe an article should be restored, you should always begin by speaking civilly to the administrator who deleted it. Community consideration Sometimes, though, civil conversation isn't productive. In those cases, where an administrator does not feel s/he has handled a deletion improperly and you do, you do have the option of deletion review ("DRV"). Again, you should always start by talking to the administrator. Keep in mind, please, that "Deletion review" is not for arguing against the policy that resulted in your article being deleted or for re-stating the case you made at articles for deletion (AfD). It is primarily for cases where you believe that the administrator who deleted your article did not follow existing policy or did not properly interpret the AfD. (It can also be used if you have discovered new information that can resolve the reason for deletion and the deleted article would be helpful in writing a new one. Please note that quite often an admin will be willing to userfy the content for you for these purposes without the need for DRV.) Finally, it can be used when an article has been deleted and the space "salted"—Wikipedia's term for preemptively protecting a space to keep a new article from being created there. Salting almost always happens because an article has been created many times under that title that did not meet guidelines. Again, though, if you can show the protecting administrator that your article will be different, there's good odds that the space will be unprotected. The administrator might suggest you take it up at DRV if he or she has concerns that your differences will not be sufficient.