Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Deletion and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This page was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1

On main page DYK today

Randy Conrad

                                                                               in useful reminders "when deletion is not an option" and "deletion policy" both link to the same thing.

sigh. (just needed to vent) Bwithh 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the conflation of news media mentions with encyclopedic notability is just out of control. (though I don't think this item belongs on Wikinews either)). .Bwithh 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How big is the newspaper? Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle Herald has a circulation of 114,000 in Nova Scotia [1]. Cape Breton Post has circulation of 27,000 in Cape Breton [2]. Times & Transcript has as a circulation of 38,664 (2004) in New Brunswick [3]. But I don't care if the story is covered by the New York Times or the BBC or hundreds of newswire stories - attention should be paid to the encyclopedic notability of a story, not just the fact that its been given attention in the news media. Bwithh 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Bwithh says, arguing over circulation figures is not the answer. But what's the alternative to Wikipedia hosting news and memorial pieces? WP:N has Uncle G's "notability-is-not-subjective" yardstick which ties neatly into WP:V/WP:NPOV. In practice it's open to debate, but it usually results in irremediable cruft, vanispam, and the like, being deleted sooner or later. It won't serve to delete news and memorials. WP:ENC, regardless of being on the Five Pillars, is not likely to get you far at AfD: Encyclopedia Dramatica is an encyclopedia too. So should we be joining Jeff in rejecting "notability" as a basis for inclusion, and what would we replace it with? Simple ways to define, never mind measure, encyclopedic-ness aren't obvious to me. The current system may be least worst and a quantity of newsy articles may be all that stand between Wikipedia and the hordes of MySpace bands. There's the demonic possibilities of mediocrity again.Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:BIO, Randy is notable - "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" (a direct copy - paste from the text). As this can include newspapers, Conrad is notable as he has been covered by 3 of them.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we're all aware of WP:BIO - which is a guideline subject to contesting interpretations and reform. Furthermore, WP:BIO as a guideline is secondary to Wikipedia's overriding mission as an encyclopedia (as opposed to all-purpose information dump and news report archive) as emphasized in key no.1 official policy WP:NOT in WP:POLICY. The discussion on this page is about reforming notability guidelines such as WP:BIO or introducing new guidelines in the light of articles such as Randy Conrad. Besides this, Randy Conrad's article is still debatable under existing guideline/policy framework and is subjectable to afd. Bwithh 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be put up for AfD. The fact that there are "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" means that plenty of contributors will argue to keep it, but it might be useful as an exercise in focusing attention on how foolish it is to hide behind a guideline without regard to the overall encyclopedic value of the subject. Eusebeus 19:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, once you bend one rule, you can't then argue for strict interpretation of other rules. This article is the exception. They've found a completely stupid topic and wasted perfectly good time sourcing it? GOOD. I , for one, have no problems with crap articles as long as the things they talk about are verifiable. The problem with going after this with deletion is that "strict" deletionists like myself have no real choice BUT to vote keep. I'd rather have a few articles like this and strict following of policy than a gajillion bullshit iterations of IAR-enhanced spam.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, thanks for the thoughts guys. A good read.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! OK, that bums me out. As does this yardstick of notability. How about, at least, if there are no secondary sources, then they're not notable... Pete.Hurd 05:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are both first and secondary types of sources in the Conrad article.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 20:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed "news" notability guideline

As we all know, wikipedia is being flooded with minor news stories that will completely fail the 100-year test, such as ~~2007 Western United States freeze~~ 2006 Auckland Blackout. There is currently no policy that addresses these articles, and they all pass WP:N as they've been featured in multiple published works. I am of the opinion, and I've noticed that others agree with me, that not only do these pages clog up wikipedia with poorly-written non-notable articles that will never be revisited a week after their creation, but they undermine wikinews, whose primary goal is to report these events.

Obviously, not all news events are non-notable - for example, see 2003 invasion of Iraq - so I don't think we should cull all news-related articles. I do, however, think that we should create a guideline that addresses the historical importance of these events.

This guideline should take the following into account:

Historical impact

If something is likely to make the history books, such as the aforementioned 2003 invasion of Iraq, then it is notable. If it significantly changed (or, for that matter, ended) the lives of thousands of people, then, again, it is notable. If something got featured once in a couple of newspapers/blogs because it was a slow news day, (for example, a high school student calling a McDonalds turkey BLT a "gigantic cornucopia of awesomeness"), then it is not notable, and should not have an article created on it.

Continued news coverage

If a story is deemed important several times by a wide variety of news sources and therefore receives continued news coverage over a period of several weeks - for example, the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning - it is notable. The probability of the article in question receiving attention during and after the story's development is high, and the article will therefore be of greater quality.

If an article doesn't meet these criteria, there is very little chance of it being revisited, and therefore very little chance that it will ever become a good article. It should be taken to wikinews instead, where such articles are welcome.

What do you guys think? Any suggestions?

Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples don't hold, except at the extremes. North_American_ice_storm_of_2007 is the general article; 85 deaths, Kyrill(storm in Europe about 47 so far. They will probably be included in detailed treatises on economic history. If they turn out to have been a precursor of worse, they certainly will be N. Reminds me of the practical working criterion in recent AfDs for Notable murderers: 1 killed is NN, 2 is debatable, 3 or more is N. (in the absence of other factors). WP will be of much more use 100 yrs from now as a record of what was seen as notable in 2005-200?. It cannot pretend to be a definitive history. DGG 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll suggest a merger of those two when I've got some time. I've changed the example to 2006 Auckland Blackout - it lasted 4-8 hours and hasn't been updated since september. The worst thing is, these articles are making it through AfD because of their news coverage - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Queens blackout. I would like to see this stopped. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right - I could not agree more. The problem is that people conflate media coverage with encyclopedic value. The tendency is amateurish, silly and prone to abuse and I would welcome listing such articles for a concerted evaluation. Eusebeus 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's News Notability Page

See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(news). He just let me know on my userpage and I wanted to bring this to the attention of the project. (I do have stuff to say on this subject but need to think more about it) Bwithh 08:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reviewing

I've started setting up the framework for reviewing articles. The goal , of course, is to FIX an article so that we don't need to delete it. I think we can all agree that only articles that fail the policies need deletion, so we typically have a three-step framework here.

1) Someone comes up with a list of possible remedies. As an example, a list might be "source the article, and if we can't make sure we can verify it. If we can verify it, stub it, otherwise delete it."

2) We try to fix the article ourselves. Sourcing, notability support, wikifying, whatever. If we can't, we take a very quick straw poll on whether the article is "for shit" or if we proceed down the list of remedies.

3) If the article is officially "for shit" (fails ALL of the following WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR, then we go ahead and nom for deletion. Otherwise, we proceed down the list of remedies.

The goal is fourfold here.

- To fix articles. Our primary desire is a factual encyclopedia, so the more articles we can fix up, the better Wikipedia is. IF an article CAN be sourced it SHOULD be, and it's always better to have a sourced article than a deleted one.
- To interface with other Wikipedians. The more people we get sourcing and fixing, the happier we'll all be.
- To find neglected articles. The four I have up for review now aren't "bad" articles, just not paid attention to. Those are the ones the inclusionists always claim they'll source and cleanup, and you can see how well that gets done. We can do it ourselves.
- So that people can see we are not all about deleting, but rather, using deletion to remove only crap, not the things that can be fixed.

So, ideas? Feedback? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I like it. I've left some comments on the discussion pages for the articles in question. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this policy. Almost anything can be relevant to Wikipedia unless it is completely made-up crap. Most articles just need some more trustworthy sources and accurate information; deletion should be avoided whenever possible. —Reelcheeper (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On notability (revisted)

An interesting effort by User:Trialsanderrors to look at WP:N. Some good ideas, others perhaps not so wonderful, but my first impression is that it is progress. See User:Trialsanderrors/On notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herm

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion I kind of want to mount this on a wall somewhere here like a moose head Bwithh 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it! there's no moose head pictures on wikipedia or wikicommons, as far as I can tell <=P Bwithh 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moose head with weirdly aligned staring eyes preferably Bwithh 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You must be kidding about the pictures, right? Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't find meese head pictures on wikipedia or wikicommons. But I'll give drawing my own a shot! Bwithh 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bun fight

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dreams NewsCenter would benefit from editors who don't have a political axe to grind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, completely crap article, but seemingly notable. Could be sourced. I've left my comments. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This afd was nominated by an editor, who with certain other editors, often give the impression that they are especially targeting particular articles for afd in line with their political beliefs (or more accurately their distaste for other political perspectives). Sometimes there is some valid point in their noms. In this case, while I disagreed with some of the claims made in the nomination, I !voted delete based on my own research (and, mind you, my personal politics I think are far closer to the website in question than the nominator's). Bwithh 23:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Did some scoring recently. Out of 10 random AfD's, I could only find one keep I disagreed with, but two deletes that I might have voted keep on, and both of those went back to DRV and were overturned.

Biggest issue is definitely neglected AfD. This is where things get abused, articles can be wrongly deleted out of hand. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

This Wikiproject is for realists, not deletionists, correct? I pray that the right mindsets join this project. — Deckill er 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could be more specific. That almost sounds like deletionists aren't realistic. Also, if you do read the front page, it says everyone is welcome to join. We welcome viewpoints, mindsets, and constructive concepts and comments, but not knee-jerk reactions. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True; my definition of deletionist is a bit more "on the extreme edge of the spectrum". What I meant by my comment was that I hope people take the front page seriously (which stressed realism when reviewing pages for deletion, from how I see it) and work with the project the way the creators intended. — Deckill er 05:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have assumptions about deletionism that members of this project don't share, and I disagree that "reviewing pages for deletion" as a principal description of this project. Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "realism" which is a term with a varied history way beyond wikipedia (though it does not appear on the handy guide to common wikiphilosophies on meta[4]). Bwithh 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get what you're saying. By realist, I meant people who don't just AfD and delete pages with potential and so on (basically what is discussed in the project explanation); they see the potential and they understand all perspectives. I'm glad there aren't extreme deletionists in this project, who wish to delete anything unsourced/poorly written immediately instead of looking to see if it can be merged, cleaned up, etc. — Deckill er 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it depends. There are some things that were created and just weren't sourced. If they can be sourced, we should. Then there is CRAP, and I'm sorry, but CRAP needs to die. In my opinion, and especially after looking hard at AfD's, too many people conflate cleanup with actually doing something. Most cleanup requests NEVER get filled. Articles with unsourced statements are , by default, deletion worthy. The fact that we're trying to source them at all actually sets us apart from deletion policy...which means I'm puzzled as to the exact nature of your concern. You're talking about people like MER-C, I think. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Elaragirl said. A prime example being articles on controversial issues like this. At the AfD a load of people turned up claiming it absolutely must be saved in spite of the glaring lack of sources/POV problems and general lousiness. How many of them have worked on cleaning it up since then? The page is still a complete shambles and will probably be allowed to fester indefinitely, lowering Wikipedia's reputation for reliability in the process. On the other hand, this very project has "Articles for review" where we actually take substandard pages and see if we can clean them up and save them from the axe. --Folantin 11:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point was brought up which is what I'm concerned about: giving ample time for people to clean up articles. I can understand how annoying it gets when an article survives AfD on a cleanup promise that is not fulfilled for many months, but I also believe that we shouldn't put people on a 2 week timer as well. One thing I've been concerned about is when people use deletion merely as a tool/threat to get people off their current priorities and onto the item needing cleanup. Looks like I don't see that issue here though, which is a relief. — Deckill er 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I share the same concerns. Often at XfDs, I don't vote "delete" or "keep", instead I try to give helpful comments about improving an article under review so it might be saved. Sometimes I've seen articles on encyclopaedic topics deleted because 5 days isn't enough time to fix the problems they have. On the other hand, we have the issue of terrible content being allowed to survive indefinitely, thus wrecking WP's reputation. We need to think up new ways of dealing with this particular dilemma.--Folantin 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "adopt an article"? :-) It might work; someone offers to improve an article within a set period. If they cannot, then the article is returned to AfD with an added pro-delete argument. — Deckill er 12:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is we should have "Put on probation" as an alternative to "Keep" or "delete". Give a set period of time in which editors can fix the major problems with an article. Put a warning tag at the top of the page telling readers the article is undergoing serious revision and the content shouldn't be trusted. When the probation period expires, the article comes back up for review. The article doesn't have to be immaculate; it just needs to show there has been a good faith effort at a clean-up. So long as outstanding problems with POV, sourcing, verifiabilty, claims to notability and so on have been addressed, it can be saved. --Folantin 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very solid idea. We've been trying to do that over at the Final Fantasy project, where I've been organizing the "anticruft" movement to clean up the gameplay-based articles. Anyway, I'd like to bring up an issue I see a lot: people who !vote "Merge and delete". We cannot merge without redirects, because it violates GFDL and simple edit history logic. But I'm pretty sure that it's mostly understood, anyway. — Deckill er 12:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the idea I have with my article reviews. If I see a good article with some problems, I put one of our templates on it and we try to see if we can fix it up or what can be improved. So far, it's in a trial phase with only four articles. Yes, there are some things that don't get enough time to get sourced....maybe. I'm a bit biased in this regard because whenever I create an article from scratch I try to always include at least one solid source from mainstream media, and I haven't yet heard how a topic that's clearly notable can be so hard to source. I know, I know, anons create articles, people aren't familiar with things, etc..but if you go through my contribs, you'll see I've sourced many articles that could have been deleted. I've voted keep on things that COULD be cleaned up. I'm trying to get people to actually look at the process of deletion, and the process of making articles, rather than having knee-jerk reaction when "their" article gets deleted. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea. Hopefully, people won't dismiss the project as a trigger happy camp before actually viewing the project page and this talkpage, because it's clearly not that. — Deckill er 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input request from the deletion experts

I listed Template:Anglicanism2 for deletion on MfD. Did I do everything correctly? This is my first *fD posting. Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, relisted it at TfD. Kyaa the Catlord 13:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sweet god, not more NPOV forks. Yeah, that looks good. I really, really wish more people would stop being dumbly bold and making bizzare POV forks. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated my first article for deletion today, Coney Island Hot Dog Stand. Why can't I see it on today's list? Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. You did everything right, just left out one of those curly bracket things in the final template. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (I almost put "Wikipedia is not Roadside America" in my rationale for deletion for it.) Kyaa the Catlord 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

User:GRBerry/Deletion Log Stats contains a statistical summary of all items deleted on January 24, my time zone. I just finished parsing deletion reasons last night. It is an Excel file with pivot table on my home computer, so if analysis of a particular sub-set of the data (eg, Image space only, or non-redirect (Main) space only, or Articles deleted by the 10 most active admins, or...) is requested, I can do it but only at certain times of the day. Already analyzed: activity by namespace, activity by reasons, activity by admin. GRBerry 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is good data...I'll have to look at it more carefully. That's a lot of unclear deletion reasons, which worries me. :( --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 85 were in main space, and about 1,800 pages were deleted in that space, so it is 5% unparsable rate. Almost all of those were using the auto-summary text. Sometimes the software prefills the reason with the page text, sometimes it doesn't. If a speedy delete tag was in the text, I assumed that was the deletion reason, so those aren't in the unparsable number. I didn't go look for talk pages to see if the page was also deleted, which would have made the unclear talk pages G8s. If you want that data more parsed, let me know. GRBerry 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah!

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_Conrad. I actually though this would survive an afd, but it seems to have been unanimously given a delete consensus by other editors (I didn't even know it had been nom'd). I fully expect this to turn up at DRV soon with the argument that "its a DYK article, and it is unacceptable to have redlinks in the DYK archive" plus "this guy appeared on TV and in local newspapers". Bwithh 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam articles

I ended up doing some poking around in two books I owned about anime and manga (bought them when I was on a big Macross kick). There's some notability in here for a lot of these minor suits, I think, although it is difficult to find.

I've stated before that if something can be sourced, it should be. After a rather long series of posts on WP:GUNDAM, I think I'm beginning to see the scope of the problem.

It's not that the things aren't notable. Most of the sourcing is buried in Japanese, which I can't fucking read very well. Lots of it is scattered around rather obscure books like the ones I own. Certainly we know Gundam itself is notable. A lot of the minor suits may or may not be notable. But the REAL issue is that the people writing the articles aren't focused on showing notability.

It's not easy to write, or to learn to create articles, that will stand up to an AfD. I suspect everyone in WP:SCISSORS does it naturally because of the way we think, but this is, in our own way, a sort of systemic bias. I was making what I intended to be a stub yesterday and I ended up finding five mainstream sources for it. Most people don't make articles that way.

With the Gundam articles, some of the stuff, like the RX-78, was clearly notable. But finding signs of it was difficult. A lot of the stats and history are available in a number of places, a lot of the artwork for some suits influnced later things such as Battletech and Robotech. But the people making the articles don't think to include that stuff -- or in some case, know where to FIND it.

I remain unconvinced that the best thing to do to unsourced articles is to delete them out of hand until and unless an attempt is made to source them. I assumed, and I think most of the people voting in these AfD's assumed, that the articles COULD not be sourced reliably. I'm beginning to think that some people writing them don't see the POINT of sourcing them reliably. "Well, if my sources aren't good enough for you, too bad" seems to be the mindset for some of them. This is more due to the fact that they aren't here to do anything but write articles for what they like. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

But no one else is making an attempt to fix what is wrong here. I'd like to see some firm guidelines one what makes things notable. Star Wars has a lot of problems with some minor elements in the same fashion as Gundam does. I don't want to delete things (I'm not a believer that calling something "cruft" magically means I can delete it at will) until I'm convinced they can't be sourced. Right now, I think many of these can be sourced and just haven't been.

Thoughts?--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Another problem is there are not enough level-headed people around to help source articles that wouldn't stand up in AfD, especially on Star Wars. I've been having my hands full with sourcing and trimming the Final Fantasy gameplay articles, and last year, I spent quite some time keeping the Star Wars elements contained into a list format. Therefore, we must keep unsourced or ill-sourced articles around so that we can eventually get to them without just deleting them from existence. I think our tags work wonders to the reader; they cover our rear end, while providing opportunities to source when there is time or resources available. — Deckill er 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be a bit more immediatist, which may or may not be popular here! Generally, my approach is to place {{unreferenced}} or {{primarysources}} and {{notability}} tags on articles which are of questionable notability with no sources or primary sources only. Generally, within a week, one of three things has happened:

The article gets secondarily sourced. The {{notability}} tag specifically mentions likelihood of being considered for deletion, amazing the motivation that provides.
The article does not get sourced, and someone comes along and nominates it for prod or AfD. Someone sees that, and then secondary sources are provided. Again, amazing the motivation that provides.
The article does not get sourced, someone comes along to nominate for prod or AfD, and it gets deleted. Good! This means either that no sources exist, or that no one cares about the article enough to find sources in one business week of time.

WHAT? You think it's good an unsourced article gets deleted even if it might be on a notable subject???

In a word? YES! For a couple of reasons. First, lack of sourcing is a tremendous problem. Deletion provides the "stick" complement to the GA/FA carrot. WP:V states that unsourced information may be removed by any editor. If I had my way, we'd make a logical extension to that-unsourced articles may be removed on sight by any administrator. Of course, that would never achieve consensus, and I wouldn't dare do it, but if I had my way it'd happen. Those considerations aside, however, there is a more practical and pragmatic aspect here. We have quite a few articles here. We have only so many recent change patrollers to check for vandalism, we have only so many WP:BLP people checking for libel, we have only so many people to check if something's a copyvio. Sourcing helps tremendously with these things, and assure that someone cares enough about an article to bother to do a little more then write a half-wrong garbage article from memory on. If that's not the case, it should be deleted, and brought back when someone cares enough to source the thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often believe that with these things, merging, or even just redirecting (if there is nothing verified to merge), to an appropriate list is better than deletion. The content isn't gone, our non-admin editors can see the history, but the poor article is not creating a bad impression and encouraging the creation of more poor articles. We are deleting about 1,800 pages a day in article space; about 15% through PROD or AFD.

Sometimes a deletion discussion acts as an educational tool, but that should never be the purpose. However, because the opportunity exists, take the time to make your opinions in AFD (or DRV) educational. If doing a PROD, avoid jargon and offer an explanation on the talk page. If someone engages in discussion, educate, educate, educate, even after that deletion process has run its course. In the long run, getting advocates of good quality articles in the relevant wikiprojects, who communicate standards to the other participants, is what will do the most to limit problem articles. (Because anyone can edit, there will always be a need to educate new editors.) GRBerry 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! In a couple cases, I've even had a couple "obvious" speedies I've tagged discussed by the editor that created them, and they ended up working alright. (Of course, in 99.99% of cases, it's just a drive-by vanity bio or ad piece, and the creator never comes back and never intended to.) Education is my whole point here. But there are some people who just don't care, who don't understand that "I watched the series and I'm sure this scene meant that..." is original research, and without some prodding (or prodding, as the case may be) are just going to keep it up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Gundam again. Alright, let's see...there's nothing wrong with writing about what we like. Heck, don't we all? I certainly do. The thing, especially with fiction-based material, is that you have to make it relevant to the real world. Which is something hanging around deletion fora certainly teaches you to do. With something like William Savage I make pretty sure I get an actual real-world assertion of notability in there somewhere.

When you think about it, there really isn't much difference between these Gundam articles and what I write about, opera. I would have no objection to the real-world Gundam topics being written about: the people who created Gundam, the designers, the popularity spread - that sort of thing. Similarly, I have no objection to there being articles written about the people associated with the premiere of Agrippina (opera). I wrote those articles/stubs myself. The problem starts when we get into heavily-fiction based thinking: I would object if anyone created an article about the character of Agrippina in the opera named after her, simply because you could not write a featured article about that topic. This is true for a fair bulk of all fiction-based material, and even with fact-based material I often think "Could I write a featured article about this person" before creating an article. This is perhaps a good thought for these minor suits: even if there are scraps of notability here and there, could you reallywrite a featured article about one of these minor suits? Wouldn't you be better off with a featured list for the whole lot, which would be more viable. Something to think about, at any rate. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Granted, some fictional characters genuinely are iconic and encyclopedic. Superman is already a featured article, and I would imagine Darth Vader or Han Solo very well could be. But I don't see the need for separate "bio" articles on general-fiction characters. If non-trivial secondary source coverage really can be found, great! If not (and generally it's a "not"), cover them under the parent article heading with a brief overview, and save the detail for a specific wiki themed to that work of fiction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find Sources Template

Hi, I've created {{FindSources}} to help... well... find sources really. Especially in AfDs and so forth. Addhoc 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is VERY good. Thank you. ;) --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea and template, and long overdue... I'm going to try to add A9 (Amazon) to it... this often covers more recently published than google books Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've added A9 and also Microsoft Live booksearch and Microsoft Live academic search Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 04:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also tweaked the format some... Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, another editor I have never encountered before has come along and accusing me of "rampant experimentation", has reverted all my changes to the template (which did not make it "radically" different as he suggests, I think) and basically told me to get my own page. Oh well. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!}

The template version with my changes, I've now put at Template:FindSources2. Its just a suggested expanded version. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage essay on grandiose notability claims

I've written one on the above topic at User:Moreschi/My left sock. Something we all know already but I thought it would be useful to have a model we could check against if it is suspected that an article matches this "My left sock" pattern. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese porn stars?

Hello, deletionists. Not sure if you as a group have came across this issue before, but take a look at the articles in Category:Japanese porn stars. Now I'm sure some of these people are notable. But then there are articles like: Saya Misaki, Kyoko Ayana, Yuria Kato, Miho Maeshima, etc etc. And some of the articles look lengthy, but they seem to be just a description of a porn star's personal life or career, without asserting why the particular porn star is worth noting, if there is anything about her that is worth noting at all. I can't go through all of the articles. Help would be appreciated. I don't care to see WP become a directory of Japanese porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I haven't just been trying to improve these little articles in the Japanese porn star category, HongQiGong. I've also been working on the Boontling‎ article lately, so you might want to sic the "deletionists" on that one too. I wonder if the editors here appreciate you using them as tools to retaliate for my temerity to disagree with your bias and edit-warring at the Japan article. -- Dekkappai 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing for me to "retaliate" against you. You did not make any edits that I disagreed with, and we have not been involved in an edit war or anything. And I've long felt that some of the articles in that category are about people who are not notable. Anyway, I'm just bringing these articles to the attention of editors who are much better versed at what ought to be deleted and what ought to be kept. I'll let them decide what to do, if it is to do anything at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a couple of things. One, this isn't the place for whatever row you fellows have been having. Two, we aren't deletionists here. We are editors interested in deletion. There's a difference. Three, please see WP:PORNBIO and WP:N and work from there. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the WP:PORNBIO guideline exists and is quite clear, I think the main problem with attempting to delete these articles is that most contributors to the English wikipedia do not read Japanese, and therefore can't tell if these "actors" meet the criteria. We could always say "there are no English sources on the article that indicate that the subject passes WP:PORNBIO so they probably don't pass it", but most of the people here like to be very sure that, when they're nominating/voting for the deletion of an article, the subject is non-notable. The same applies when checking the stars against WP:V - if we can't read the sources, we can't vote delete on account of them failing WP:V.

Anyone who can read Japanese, however, is free and encouraged to check the articles in question against WP:PORNBIO. I just don't think that people should be voting for the deletion of articles when they can't read the sources. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 11:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the thoughtful comments on this subject. When the above editor has a dispute with another editor (and I didn't even have an editing conflict with him, I merely pointed out on the article's talk page what I saw as biased and edit-war-like editing), he makes a practise of "baiting" his opponent into violations he can report and/or some other form of retaliation (in this case, threatening to make mass AfD's in the category in which I edit-- He has done this many times before). As far as your mention of the Japanese sources, Ultra-Loser, the majority of these articles were started as unsourced stubs by other editors. I have been working hard to expand and source them myself. I do follow Wikipedia's policy in favoring English-language sources over foreign-language sources whenever possible. Understandably for these subjects, however, sometimes Japanese sources must be used. When I do use Japanese sources, I try to favor the most database-like, (i.e., non-commercial, least-explicit, and most easily-read by someone with even a very little knowledge of Japanese) when I can. Anyway, I'm sorry that you were brought into this last little spat, but your reasonable comments on the issue are much appreciated. Regards. Dekkappai 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi - I apologise if I used the wrong name for members of this WikiProject. But if there's any "row" between me and User:Dekkappai, it is because he takes issue with that I think some of the articles in that category ought to be deleted because the people for which they are created are not notable. Yes, there may be cases where the sources that verify their notability are entirely in Japanese and that presents a difficulty for English WP. However, this does not mean that they should get a free pass to exist just based on an ever-present assumption that they may possibly be verified to be notable - otherwise all articles on subjects of non-English origin could use this justification to stay in existence forever, no matter if these subjects are actually notable or not. What we can see, however, is that some of these articles have existed for a long time, and they remain unable to assert notability. Two out of the four examples I gave in my first comment here were created in 2005, yet the articles are only a few sentences long each. Other examples of these articles exist in the category - a few sentences, a listing of porn movies, and maybe a picture. The only attempt to assert notability seems to be that, for example, so-and-so has "24 DVDs listed on Japanese Amazon.com". Now to the best of my knowledge, that does not establish why someone is notable at all. But again, I am only bringing these articles to your attention, as you seem to know much better than I do what kinds of articles ought to be deleted and what ought to be kept. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the articles meet the criteria for deletion then go ahead and propose deletion. If the articles are deproded then take them to an AfD. WP:PRON is pretty clear on what is and is not notable in the field of pornography. This is not really the venue to advertise or seek support for a dispute with another editor. You might also wish to persue a request for comment to get some more outside viewpoints. In my experiance unless a porn star has won adult entertainment awards or is notable to the general public (in the case of Jenna Jameson or Ron Jeremy) then the subject is not notable enough for an article. My Japanese is not good enough to comb through Japanese only sources but if you ask another user that speaks japanese ( you can find native speakers by punching "Category:User_ja-N" into your search tab) you might have better luck in establishing notability. NeoFreak 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any of these Japanese porn stars so I can't estimate their famous levels. I think that the two of you should have a thorough discussion before bringing up the problems here. If you can't go to consensus and we'll help you. In fact, the notability is a very complex issue and it's not easy to valuate a person, an event... is "notable" or not, since the notability sometimes depends on the objective opinions of the people in those certain countries, cultures, areas... about that person, that event. For example, those Japanese stars may be considered "notable" in Japan but "not notable" in US. However, in my part, I'd prefer articles which contain really notable information rather than the limited-in-areas notability because Wiki would become blocked someday if thousands of the excessive "so-called notable" appears every day. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would be great if some of the members here would advise on whether or not some of these articles ought to be nominated for deletion. I have nominated several of them in the past, some have been deleted, and some have been kept. Of the ones that have been kept, I am still unsure on how notability has been established. Would you say that, for example, if an article has existed for a long time, and there remains no mention of the actress having won any awards or having done anything that is noted in mainstream sources, that the article ought to be deleted? Some of the reasons that have been cited for keeping the articles that I have nominated were that so-and-so has X number of DVDs listed on Japanese Amazon.com, or that sources are in Japanese, so notability is hard to establish and it's better to keep the article. I'm not sure how the first argument is valid, WP:PORNBIO clearly states that number of films is a dubious method to establish notablity. And I can understand the second argument for newly created articles, but some of these are not new. It may simply be impossible to establish notability for some of them - because they are not notable after all. I see no reason that they should be kept forever-and-ever instead of trusting that the WP community would have established notability, if that is possible, after a period of time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm on a work computer right now but I'll take a look tonight. NeoFreak 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Deletion review currently has an unusually high level of participation by people that don't appear to be Wikipedia regulars. Anyone with spare time want to help sort out which nominations are legitimate and which aren't? (I will probably be closing most of the reviews, as the new default DRV closer. So I'm not looking into that until they become ripe for closure.) GRBerry 00:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my eye out if you can give me more detail about what you're concerned about - just SPAs? Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't everything, is it?

This article is extremely worrying; an AFD apparently won over by WP:SPAs. Obviously, webcomics are infamously murky, but that this could go unnoticed is unnerving. Gracenotes ^T § 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sock puppetry/SPA "voting" going unnoticed actually worries me more then the actual outcome. Quite realistically, the thing really did lack secondary sources, and really should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the article should be kept, at this point, but it's possible that this could happen for something more... important than a webcomic. Gracenotes ^T § 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first afd was overturned quickly by WP:DRV and the article has been relisted [5] Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikia Projects: Entertainment, Local, Politics

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/13/jimmy-wales-wants-to-go-tabloid

I hope these will be legitimate transwiki target sites (without wikinews licensing problems). Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 05:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Wikia is GFDL licensed - that's good[6] Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT replaces WP:V?

is Wikipedia:Attribution replacing WP:V or what? (WP:Verifiability is still up.)

redirect to WP:ATT created Feb 16: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=WP:V&action=history

Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Very nice. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". About time that got spelled out. NeoFreak 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Prod-nn}} template

Hi, I've created a {{Prod-nn}} template, which hopefully is fairly self explanatory... Addhoc 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh Good Grief

been taking a little bit of a wikibreak recently, but this whole ridiculous saga by Timothy Noah (see his article and talk page on Timothy Noah) on Slate.com has roused me from my slumber:

http://www.slate.com/id/2160839/

Note that he's not only arguing against all notability guidelines (okay, we can all have a reasonable debate about how well the guidelines are working, though Noah seems to be dismissing them all based on close-to-zero actual wikipedia experience), but he also thinks that he ought to be able to write articles on his cleaning lady and mailman without any independent verifiable sourcing except materials provided by them themselves (and he would be "especially irritated" if other people objected to this). We almost all have government documents, qualification diplomas, school yearbooks and other kinds of certificates and records testifying that we exist and we have done stuff - so we would all deserve a page in Noah's vision (and he doesnt seem bothered about us writing our own articles either - though he insists all this won't turn Wikipedia into MySpace. Well, ok, perhaps not MySpaace (soemthing of a straw man comparison), but more likely a resume dump/social networking site). Anyway, this may be the first mainstream media column promoting extreme inclusionism (admittedly written by someone with very little experience of wikipedia and some shakey journalistic skills - see my comments on the Timothy Noah article talk page) Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started a tremendous debate on WT:N too, the page got protected due to people edit-warring over the "guideline" tag, and been debating over whether it's a guideline or something else, should exist, be loosened/tightened, etc. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My word...what a mess. That blog's a joke, though. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jordan (aka Essjay)

It would seem that Essjay has been lying to alot of people about alot of things. Some time ago an article was created by a Single Purpose Account to cover the "emerging scandal". The AfD for this article is going to be an AfD for the history books as it looks like alot of users are ignoring the deletion criteria and closing ranks. I would recommend that all interested in the deltion process check out the AfD for the article. NeoFreak 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...yeesh. I personally think that the article should be deleted on notability grounds, in line with my long-standing views of the relative significance of media reporting. However, I have to say that I am concerned about Jimbo's very mild reaction to this incident, and I would have thought punitive action against Essjay - i.e. de-sysoping and possibly a review of his Wikia position - should at least be considered. (as an aside... The New Yorker has a famed reputation for their fact-checking department - they must be pissed to have been duped like this) Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual events are a entire diffrent whirlwind of shit. I'd really like to see how this AfD plays out though. I have to disagree with you, it meets WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:ATT. Why would you recommend deltion here? NeoFreak 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this isn't Wikinews, it's an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your personal objections to coverage of recent events events involving wikipedia how does this meet the criteria for deletion? NeoFreak 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, WP:ENC, which is at WP:5P level, rather than a crufty guideline. At a lower level, WP:SOAP is relevant, as is WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. As a general rule, WP:NOT says "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." So I pondered, and the answer that came to me is that they wouldn't expect to find anything. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that the article is fundamentally unencyclopedic but cannot point to a specific policy that it violates? Is this because you feel that the way the article is constructed is to avoid accountability by policy or because you feel that the policy itself is lacking? NeoFreak 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial news reporting—"growing media interest" is a gross exaggeration going by the gnews results, "ryan jordan" + wikipedia get 7 hits—belongs somewhere else, regardless of how superficially well-referenced it might be. So, yes, something is broken, but that's nothing new. See the proposed "news" notability guideline section above for an earlier discussion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to these events been written about in a section in Criticism of Wikipedia (as I stated in the afd discussion, and as I believe it already has been) or in Signpost (as I'm sure they will be). I'm just not seeing enough non-trivial evidence that this person is of sufficient encyclopedic notability for his own article - just as its unnecessary for Brian Chase to have his own article outside of his mention in John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Yes, this controversy got its own article too, but at the moment, there's no indication that the Essjay incident is of a similar scale). I have been long opposed to undue weight given to media mentions being used to support articles. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 01:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that is a fair position. Still, with the level of growing media interest and the potential long term effects I would argue that merging this article right now would be premature. NeoFreak 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the appropriate policies; deleting it would be a move to save face for Wikipedia, which will naturally be seen as bad in the public's eyes. — Deckill er 23:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you wish this to be deleted in order to conceal sourced, notable and attributable facts for te purpose of saving the image of wikipedia in the eyes of the public? I'm not trolling, that is an honest question. NeoFreak 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; I don't want to see this deleted because it would be a bad publicity move and a "double standard". As a matter of fact, I voted keep on the AfD. — Deckill er 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. NeoFreak 02:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. — Deckill er 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I haven't known about this incident before taking a look at this (it seems not flare up in the community as Daniel Brandt issue) . If Essjay in real a notable person, why don't we rename the page to "Ryan Jordan"? Causesobad → (Talk) 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons

Everyone should be looking at the new BLP courtesy deletion proposed guildline. If I'm not mistaken this is more fallout from the Essjay incident. The basic idea is that any subject of any Bio can as an admin to delete his bio if he as a problem wit it. Of course there are alot of other stipulations but that's the premise. NeoFreak 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, for once I actually agree with bdjeff over something deletion-related. IMO this is a solution looking for a problem. Unsourced information in a BLP article? Remove it. The whole article sucks? Stubify it. The fellow isn't notable? Take to AfD. This is superflous instruction creep, other stuff covers the problems adequately. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McElwaine

Does anyone else remember Robert McElwaine? His bio is up at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. McElwaine. McElwaine doesn't seem to have managed even Archimedes Plutonium-style minimal real-world celebrity so far as I can see. If anyone is aware of reliablish sources which could be used to rewrite the article, this would be the time to speak up. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of everything (philosophy)

I am asking for your help in evaluating this article for deletion based om WP:NOR criterion. At the first glance the article looks plausible, but after a careful reading, it is nothing more than an exposition of a certain book with occasional supportive references to some other books. The most important issue is that this term (in phylosophical sense) is not the one used in the referenced books, (they talk about "Grand Unified Theory", "Ultimate Theory"), in other words, this term is not a well-established one, and therefore the article is OR. At first I thought it could be salvaged into artice about the book in question, but again it comes to my nimd, lacking secondary sources, it will be still original research.

I do not want to list for nomination all by myself, because I am not an expert in the topic, and my judgement is superficial, therefore I wanted to test my opinion without wasting time of wider crowd.

Please comment. Thank you. Mukadderat 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of fun :)

User:Sceptre/Deletionist cabal. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Coffey

I was wondering if there was a criteria for notability of so-called psychics like Chip Coffey. I prodded, but the author deprodded it. hbdragon88 00:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorised_musical_groups

Hi guys, I hope you find this category helpful in trimming down unneeded articles in Wikipedia. Some of these articles are notable but some are just articles about a band created one day. I don't know which is which since I'm not an expert when it comes to musical groups. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request ... identifying SPA contributions

I have requested a bot to generate lists of pages created by single-purpose accounts. The reason for the request is that I expect that many pages created by SPAs will be tests, vanity pages, advertising, and pages that otherwise do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The bot-generated list may make it easier to identify and correct or delete such pages.

Given the effort required to create the bot, it is important to know beforehand whether enough people would be willing to work on the bot-generated list. For more details and to share your thoughts, please see the thread at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Identifying SPA contributions. Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help....

Can someone nominate List of basketball players. It is (incredibly) unfinished, only lists specific players, and the criteria in undefined Thanks in advanced.Mm40 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caucusing as a legitimate activity

Is there any way we can expand opportunities for caucusing in a way that is fair? Caucusing is typically a normal part of decision-making in large assemblies (see also Wikipedia:PARL#Allowability_of_caucuses). The downside is that the side with a less organized constituency tends to lose, but that already happens. We have some vote stacking going on off-wiki through IRC, chat, email, etc. See also the discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing about whether we should let users opt-in to receive canvassing. Template:Canvass would allow them to set restrictions on such canvassing. The advantage to doing it on-wiki is that it's more transparent, and could help level the playing field between the established users who have these off-wiki communication systems, and relatively new users, or those who have simply spent more time writing articles than making such connections. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline proposal

To avoid or rein in a lot of the AfD arguments relating to articles about crimes that are covered widely in the media, I've proposed a new guideline as an addition to the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) which may be of interest to you, since it may help in AfD debates. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes (persecuted listers unite)

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. S B H arris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in WP:BK

Hello everyone. A discussion on whether multilanguage or international publication establishes notability is taking place in WP:BK right here. This is a meaningful opportunity to shape Wikipedia policy regarding this particular issue. I have also notified Wikiproject Inclusion. Estemi (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement through deletion?

I just met an editor who uses deletion templates to either delete or improve articles that he personally thinks are important (using CSD and PROD). Is this proper? (see Gordonrox24 (talk · contribs)) 76.66.193.69 (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article purgatory proposal

I've put up a proposal at WT:AfD on which I would appreciate some "deletionist" perspective and feedback:Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#ARSify.3F Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of relisted AfD debates

You might like Wikipedia:Coordination/afdrelists, which is updated every hour. @harej 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing rationales

I've started a thread on whether closing rationales should stay optional here. Please contribute! Fences&Windows 01:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion stats

What percentage of all the articles created by: a. Non-autoconfirmed registered users b. Auto-confirmed registered users get deleted via: 1. speedy deletion, 2. proposed deletion and 3. articles for deletion? Fences&Windows 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template policy question

I apologize if this is posted anywhere but I couldn't find any mention of it. Does Wikipedia have templates that are only intended for use on one page? Thanks, Uyvsdi (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this WikiProject Deletion Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirects and WP:CFD

Hello, WikiProject Deletion. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Category redirects.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone active?

Is anyone active in this project? Mad Man American (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

42 users are listed as participants and nobody has responded to my question? Maybe this project is dead. Mad Man American (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give people a few days to respond.

As a preliminary, I think it is time we got as far away as possible from the very word "deletion", Sometimes it is pretty obvious that something cannot be included within the framework of the encyclopedia--or at least I think and act on that basis, having myself removed almost 10,000 articles here. Where it isn't obvious, then usually the question is not whether something should be included, but whether it should be included in a separate article. This is not a black|white decision, and it is doubtful that we can have completely defined rules for such decisions.

But there are two related problems: one is the establishment of accepted standards for deletion, which is I think not readily solvable; the other is establishing fair & consistent procedure, which is. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to have around. I'd actually like to see this project welcome those of the whole range of opinions on what is/isn't appropriate material for a full article, it's a discussion that needs to be undertaken. Right now, except in dead obvious cases, whether or not an article stays is largely determined by who happens to show up at AfD that day and whether they like it or don't. I think that is far from the ideal situation. I'd like to see the focus on a few questions:

How can we better focus AfD discussions on core policy such as What Wikipedia is not and verifiability, as well as the availability or lack thereof of reliable sources on the topic, rather than having them degenerate into shouting matches when the topic is remotely controversial?
How can we help encourage new and existing admins who close AfD discussions to judge discussions on strength of argument and concurrence with policy, not a nose count?
Would it be worthwhile to develop an "umbrella" inclusion policy, rather than the horrific balkanization of guidelines and subguidelines we have now?
How can we best evaluate available source material to determine if there is enough to make a worthwhile article? Could we give better guidance than the notability guideline currently does?

This has been an intractable debate for many years now, and the current state of affairs is that we muddle through case by case, often alienating people on both sides. Without getting into prescriptive, no-exceptions policy, I'd still like to see us have much better written rules that eliminate a lot of uncertainty as to whether an article is appropriate or not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion occurring: add the Find sources parameter to the AfD template

I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template: Located Here.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No content on page listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:No content on page. Since you had some involvement with the Template:No content on page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 70.24.247.127 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaflet for Wikiproject Deletion at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTFAQ and NOTHOWTO

An RfC has been opened to see if WP:NOTFAQ and WP:NOTHOWTO should or should not apply to redirects. For the discussion, see WT:NOT#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:recap

{{recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]