Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pcb21 (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 9 October 2003 (pros/cons GrahamN's proposal (please edit)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In December, Stephen Gilbert switched the order of rules #1 and #2. Since I remember often referring to "rule #2" and the like, I switched them back to preserve the integrity of such references. But if people have been using the new numbering (for rules #1 and #2) a lot since then, then they should be kept in the new form -- so please restore them to Stephen's version if you know that. -- Toby 04:03 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an additional guideline - consider orphaning articles (and images) before deleting them. IE, if you're planning to delete Fred and that article is linked to from Flintstone, then remove the link from Flintstone to Fred. This means that people working on Flintstone are less likely to be surprised when that article dissappears. Not universally applicable, but I think it often makes sense. Martin

Sorry to spam recent changes, I had "minor" edit clicked and that wasn't minor, so I wanted to make sure the change & summary was seen. Koyaanis Qatsi

Skipping the "Votes for deletion" page

A while ago STG added

If the page contains 'dfdgsfgdgf' and no useful history, this step may be skipped.

which morphed over time to

If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped.

I strongly believe the second form is vague enough to be misinterpreted (or at least debatably interpreted, which is nearly as bad), and we don't need policies that generate conflict. "Useful content", like beauty, is too much in the eyes of the beholder.

I also don't really agree with the first, in line with the same argument, but at the same time, we shouldn't have policies that allow for zero judgment on the part of Wikipedians unless it becomes an obvious problem. --The Cunctator 03:40 18 May 2003 (UTC)

All well and good. Talk to Jimmy about it. I hardly think changing the policy summary here, without explanation, will convince anyone of anything except that you have an agenda. You're all for keeping things "aboveboard," so why don't we keep the policy changes aboveboard also? Discuss it at wikien or on the talk pages before changing it. Koyaanis Qatsi
You're right. That's why I gave an explanation. Editing the page is certainly aboveboard. It's just not "talk before change". And I've never been all for that. --The Cunctator

There are too many requirements which, if allowed to continue, will, for all practical purposes, make it impossible to get a page deleted:

  1. Every page which should be deleted needs to be listed on the Votes for deletion page, where it will be discussed ad nauseum. Look at how many things sit there forever with nobody bothering to delete them.
  2. Nothing can be deleted for at least a week after being put on Votes for deletion. This is too long a time. What are we to do about nuisance articles being created by banned users who come into the Wikipedia to cause trouble, or those like Michael who keeps coming in and creating articles even though they know that they've been banned? Do we just let those articles sit around forever? There are users such as MyRedDice who will vote to keep any and all entries from banned users because he doesn't believe in banning anybody for anything.
  3. The person who takes the initiative to put an article on Votes for deletion isn't allowed to do the actual deleting. Again, this is a disincentive to even put anything on the list. -- Zoe
  1. No entry sits there forever. Forever is a long, long time.
  2. A week is not a long time. There's no restriction on editing articles immediately. If banned users create useful articles (not saying that that's what happening) then there's no need to delete the articles.
  3. You're right, it is a disincentive. It's also a simple and neutral check on individual bias. Deleting a page is a big decision, usually with many alternatives, and should not be taken lightly. --The Cunctator
  1. I supported the "dsfsdfs", and I assumed that "no useful content" was meant to be a clarification of that. If people are interpreting it more widely, then I support revertion to the previous policy.
  2. I strongly oppose deleting suspected copyright infringements without using votes for deletion and waiting a week.
  3. The current policy of not deleting stuff until they've been for VfD on a week could be made more flexible, I think.
  4. The arguments about dealing with "banned" users are interesting, but a seperate subject. Readers may care to note that I recently "soft banned" user:No-Fx, demonstrating that I do not believe that no user should ever be "banned".
  5. I continue to strongly believe that wherever it is possible to redirect rather than delete, then we should do so. If/when we get a better deletion system (as discussed on meta:deletion management redesign) then this will change, but until then deletion is a sysop-restricted change that is hard to reverse and should be used sparingly.
  6. Please don't take the approach that because I, or someone else, would oppose deleting something, therefore you will not use the votes for deletion page. That's not a very consensus-driven approach, and since, unlike The Cunctator, I regularly review the deletion log, it's not likely to be very successful either.

numbered comments. Very nice. :) Martin 12:44 18 May 2003 (UTC)


I feel like doing something non-controversial for a change, so I plan to create wikipedia:delete test and welcome. It's been talked about on the list, but AFAIK it's not been implemented yet, so here goes! :) Martin 20:08 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Just checking - if a page is deleted, is it policy to delete their talk pages without further discussion, or do they need to be listed on VfD too? I just deleted Talk:Keshavianistic oligarchy and Talk:Keshavianistic Oligarchy, the latter being a redirect to the former. -- Oliver P. 14:21 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think there's a list somewhere of orphan talk pages that gives suggestions... but I can't remember where... Martin
Ah... I've just found Wikipedia:Orphan talk pages - is that what you meant? It lists things that can be done with orphan talk pages, but doesn't give a policy on what should be done with them. I suppose I should have just put them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The ones I deleted had no useful information as far as I can recall, but I've just undeleted them so you can check to see if you think I was doing anything underhand... :) -- Oliver P. 01:38 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
As the initiator of Wikipedia:Orphan talk pages, I don't think it would be meaningful to have a policy for this because they don't really fall into a single category (other than in the broad sense that they are pages in a talk namespace who share titles with non-talk pages which have been deleted). Some are worth saving because they have interesting, thought-provoking discussion. Some are not worth saving because they consist only of "somebody wrote JGFFUSIDNHUISF in this page can an admin delete it please?" or "this page should be deleted to make room for a rename." Some can and should be refactored into general discussion pages or into other related talk pages. It's a call that should be based on the individual page -- just like any other page on the wiki. Nothing special. --Brion 04:31 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Am I allowed to delete pages with nothing but an interlanguage link on them? I think that's even worse than a page with a normal external link (since at least in that case I could understand the content), and furthermore it would be entirely unreasonable for en: users to go to all the other wikis and insert pages with nothing but interlanguage links in them... Evercat 11:32 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. An interlanguage link doesn't count as content. Actually, I'm not sure I agree with the idea of deleting pages with only normal external links on them, because it's usually a trivial exercise just to follow the link and get enough information from the page linked to to create a vaguely useful stub; the same isn't true of interlanguage links, unless you happen to know the language in question. -- Oliver P. 11:12 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"no useful content"

I'm thinking of changing "no useful content" to "no meaningful content", which I think gives the idea a little better. Good? Bad? Martin

Good idea. GrahamN 15:04 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Bad idea. :-) To use Eloquence's example, "Josh is gay" is content, and it has meaning. But it is not useful, which is why it can be deleted. Evercat 15:08 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion it should be deleted - after it has been up on votes for deletion for a week. I don't think it should be deleted on the spot by a single administrator acting unilaterally. GrahamN 15:16 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Why not? Evercat 15:18 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Because it is very hard to draw a line between articles that everybody would agree are rubbish, and articles that only some people think are rubbish. I hope you agree that the decision to delete things in the latter category should be seen to be made by consensus, and therefore should be subject to the full votes for deletion procedure. The decision on which of those two categories a thing falls into is never going to be clear-cut - it is necessarily subjective. Since this is a community project, I feel that all subjective judgements should be made by the community as a whole, not by an elite of privileged individuals, no matter how highly respected they are and no matter how unimpeachable their personal standards of integrity and honesty. So, the decision as to whether an article is rubbish or not must be made by consensus. That said, I can see the practical difficulties. The votes for deletion page would become very unwieldy. So, in a spirit of pragmatic compromise, I'd like to suggest that the policy should say
Any article that is not a redirect, that has no edit history and that contains fewer than [say] thirty characters may be deleted out of hand. For all other articles, the full "votes for deletion" procedure must be followed.
Since these criteria could be checked by the software, I'd like to make the further suggestion that anybody should be able to delete such very short articles - not just the administrators. GrahamN 16:16 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
But there are bound to be quite a few pages that are so obviously useless that there's no good reason to list them on VfD, whether they're over some character limit or not. I find it odd that you think "Josh is gay" type stuff needs to be listed on VfD. I just want people to use common sense, really. Evercat 18:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about giving four categories where sysops can delete without listing:

  1. pages with no meaningful content (eg "sdhgdf")
  2. test pages ("can I really create a page here?")
  3. pages containing only vandalism (eg "Josh is gay")
  4. pages contributed solely by banned users

"No useful content" can be variously interpreted, as shown by Cunctator vs Zoe and GrahamN vs Eloquence. I don't think that helps. Martin 15:26 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


What about external-links-only pages? Evercat 15:31 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


List them on VfD. Someone may want to research from the external links and create an article, and arbitrary deletion doesn't give them that option. Also, someone may begin a page by providing external links, and slowly flesh them out into a proper article over the next few days. Both of these things have actually happened, by the way.
Incidentally, articles with external links only aren't "no useful content", imo. Martin 15:44 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the sentence

"Here are some guidelines that those tasked with permanently deleting pages can generally be expected to follow in making the decision to delete or not:"

be changed to

"Here are some guidelines that should be followed when deciding whether an article should be deleted."

Comments, please. GrahamN 15:04 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but not yet. We need to fix the policy first, before making it more binding. Martin 15:26 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
My problem with the wording was not that it was non-binding, but that it could be taken to imply that "those tasked with permanently deleting pages" (i.e. administrators) are empowered to take decisions unilaterally, provided they follow the guidelines. This is not the case. Administrators have to follow the procedure further up the page. GrahamN 17:00 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"no useful content" to list of exceptions

After the conversation above, I changed "no useful content" to be a bit more specific - hopefully this will alleviate the differences in interpretation we ran into with the old rule. If you think there should be more, or fewer, exception, add or delete appropriately. Martin 18:10 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've removed "Pages created and edited solely by a banned user, after they were banned. (see bans and blocks)." User:DW, for example, made quite a lot of decent pages under different pseudonyms after he'd been banned, many of them not edited by anybody else - I don't think it would serve the Wikipedia to delete them. --Camembert
That's a nice opinion and all but Jimbo agrees with the exception you removed. Pages created by banned users and have not been edited by anybody else can be reverted to be a red link again. Otherwise you are allowing the HardBaned user to circumvent the ban without changing the behavior that got them banned. While under a HardBan a person cannot edit at all - period. So anything they create should have never been there to begin with. That doesn't mean all such articles have to be deleted - but it does mean that they can if/when it becomes obvious that the person creating them is the user under the HardBan. I'll restore the exception. --mav 21:58 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In matters of opinion, I agree with Camembert.
In matters of Jimbo's Word, I think mav is subtly overstating Jimbo's position here.
Perhaps I can put "(controversial)" after that rule, just to reflect the range of opinions on the subject. Martin 00:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really do wonder if this new "tightening-up" of deletion policy isn't going to cause trouble. As I was thinking about this, an example came up on Recent Changes. A page about some guy was deleted, with the sole content:

one word
LEGEND

Now. It's content, it's meaningful, it's not vandalism. Is something like this really supposed to be listed on VfD? This is why I prefered "no useful content". Evercat 23:16 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd have to see the article in question, but in that sort of case, surely the best thing to do is to turn it into a stub, and ask the author if they could add a few more words? If you list it on VfD, you give the author a week to flesh the article out, which is surely only polite. Martin 00:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've quoted the article in question in its entirity. :-) (well, actually, I removed a newline to save space, but...) It was Musiq Soulchild. Evercat 00:42 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, you can call it a test page, and delete it on that basis. If it was a test page. You'd have to talk to the author to find out. Hey, a policy that encourages sysops to speak to people before deleting their stuff? That's radical... Martin 00:57 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But if wasn't a test? You think the above needs to be listed on VfD? Evercat 13:13 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is all hypothetical, since nobody has actually asked the author?
Hypothetically, suppose that this isn't a test - it's a genuine attempt to write an article on Soulchild, but by a newbie who doesn't quite understand our ways yet. Well, it doesn't need to be listed on VfD. But I think that if you want to delete it, and you don't feel you can call it a mere test, then you should list it on VfD. Like I say - give the author, or a third party, a chance to expand on it, before deleting it. Martin 13:27 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, if the author wants to expand it later, deleting it doesn't prevent that. Am I right in thinking the motive behind your suggestion here is that you don't want newcomers to be scared off, or think that their edits are mysteriously disappearing for some unknown reason? If so, how about straight-off deletion, but with a note to the author's talk page to the effect that there are certain minimum standards for articles, and they're welcome to try again...


(I've already started doing something like this for pure test pages (see User:Evercat/text)... Evercat 13:31 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically my concern. But you've convinced me. I think you're right here - I've been unnecessarily conservative. But is there a way we can phrase this that's a bit less vague than "no useful content"? Because that vagueness has lead to TWO nasty flame wars, and I really want to avoid that. Martin 14:07 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Um, I'll try and give it some thought... how about "very short pages that don't even contain a definition of the subject"? Evercat 14:12 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps we should encourage people to add such articles to wikipedia:requested articles as well? Would that be good? Martin 14:44 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Also in cases where the content is "why doesn't this page exist? I need it for my homework". :-) Evercat 14:47 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nice edit, Evercat! That was exactly what needed to be said! :) Martin 23:15 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cool. One last thing - I think we should explicitly say whether pages with external links only should be deleted straight off or not... I've no amazingly strong opinions, as long as they are deleted eventually (7 days as per VfD?) if nobody ever stubbifies it... Evercat 23:29 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've made the omission explicit. I favour listing on VfD, personally... How many pages would this affect per week? Martin 23:33 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Probably not that many... from a glance at Wikipedia:Deletion log, we seem to get a couple a day... Evercat 23:41 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There was some duplication here between the "don't list on VfD" section, and the guidelines, so I thought I'd try to clear that up. Also, (as threatened earlier), I'm moving the redirect guidelines to wikipedia:redirect. I don't think I've changed the meaning of anything, only the expression - but if you think I've tried to sneak something past, please revert me straight away! :) Martin 14:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Should versus Consider

I can agree that people should consider deletion, but I don't agree that they should delete all such redirects. Given that this is a recent change to long-standing guidelines, let's take it slow, eh? Martin 13:31, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

should doesn't mean must, I think it's appropriate for the guideline to be more firm when the decisions can be more objective (which is part of the reason why I like the longer version of the redirect deletion guideline). Anyway, the deletion guidelines as a whole could stand to be more a bit more direct. Daniel Quinlan 17:27, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Wording for this page

Well I've come to the conclusion that Daniel Quinlan and myself have such vastly different approaches on the redirect issue that we're having difficulty even communicating with each other, let alone reaching an agreement on what the best approach is.
However, I think saying "consider deleting redirects if the problems they cause outweigh their advantages" is something we can both agree on, so I think that'd make sense for this page. I've boldly done it for now. Objections? Martin 00:14, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let's call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. I believe certain redirects should be deleted. You believe no redirects should ever be deleted. Even when people generally agree on a guideline for which redirects should be deleted, you continually water down the terminology to actively discourage deletion, even when past history indicates that most people believe that deletion is the right option for certain types of redirects. As you just have done. I have tried to address your concern about "breaking" pages by proposing a way to phase out redirects before they are removed, but I have failed to get you, specifically you, to budge at all on the issue. Daniel Quinlan 00:51, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
You missed "unilateral". Also, I think you really ought to be "shocked" and/or "appalled" at this stage. It's kinda traditional. :)
Anyway, I guess I can live with your version as a compromise, though I still feel that consider is more appropriate. So, are we all done here? Martin 02:09, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Where should we draw the line?

I've just made a unilateral policy change, basically because lots of people have been deleting pages that don't fit into the seven categories in the "Procedure for deletion" section, and I was pissing everyone off by going around complaining rudely to them about it...

I've noticed that the "What to keep, what to delete" section seems to contradict the "Procedure for deletion" section anyway, because it says to delete "stubs that don't even have a decent definition" and even "stubs that will never become more than a simple definition". A decent definition is a stronger requirement than any definition at all. And I think that saying we can delete "stubs that will never become more than a simple definition" is too much - that involves a degree of prescience that I don't think someone can be expected to have. Just where should we draw the line? -- Oliver P. 20:01, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You do realise that what you added to 1.4 contradicts what you said to me on my talk page? You've made the policy say I can delete "blah blah his wife was great!. Angela 20:25, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I haven't contradicted myself. What I said to you was about the policy as it was at the time I said it. What you did was, in my opinion, contrary to what the policy was at the time. (I think. But see below for some confusingness.) Just now, I unilaterally changed the deletion policy so that (assuming my change sticks) what you did will be allowable in the future. So you should be happy! :P -- Oliver P. 20:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I understand now. I'm happy. :) -- Angela

Ah. It seems from the page history that this rather large change by Martin is the biggest cause of my confusion regarding the apparent contradictions between the "Procedure for deletion" section and the "What to keep, what to delete" section. It seems that Martin replaced a section headed "Don't list on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" with a section headed "What to keep, what to delete". The latter starts by saying, "When considering whether to list a page on VfD," but then goes on to talk about keeping or deleting (rather than listing) pages. So it could now be interpreted to mean that we are allowed to delete "stubs that don't even have a decent definition" and "stubs that will never become more than a simple definition" and so on without listing them on VfD. Perhaps "delete" should say "list", throughout...? I think I need to get Martin over here to discuss this... -- Oliver P. 20:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok, but bear in mind that Martin's decision isn't final. If any controversy remains over these points there needs to be more discussion about them. Angela 20:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi Oliver. I discussed this above with Evercat and GrahamN, but it was to some extent unilateral. Your change looks fine to me - you might want to check with Evercat - I think it was her suggestion.
You raise a good point about "What to keep, what to delete" - I hadn't seen that ambiguity (which existed prior to my change, just to engage in buck-passing!) - I'll edit it to make the meaning a bit clearer. Martin 09:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I wonder if patent nonsense should be another exception to the VFD requirement. Martin 10:45, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I thought it was covered by "no meaningful content". Angela 10:52, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
So it is. I added a link to make that explicit. Martin

I'm not convinced that Oliver's changes solve the problem he was concerned about. Could not "do not list stubs" be misinterpreted to mean that one can delete stubs without listing them on VfD? :-/ Martin 13:56, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, my concern in my last message was that the lead-in sentence in the section headed "What to keep, what to delete" was about listing on VfD, whereas the section itself spoke of deletion, not listing. Your changes today clarified a few things, but left in the word "delete" everywhere, so it sounded like we were allowed to delete those things without listing them. So I took the liberty of renaming the section to "What to list on VfD", and changing "keep" to "don't list" and "delete" to "list" throughout that section. I also removed the sentence that said, "These recommendations also apply to admins deciding whether or not to delete a page that has been listed on VfD for a week," because that the section (according to my interpretation) is about what to list on VfD, and not about deletion. But if it's still unclear, I'll try again... -- Oliver P. 14:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with these three points;

  1. List pages that you believe will simply will never become encyclopedia articles.
  2. List stubs that you believe will never become more than a simple definition.
  3. List stubs that don't even have a decent definition.

Why would you want to list these? They should be deleted on sight. Angela 14:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My reasons would be:
  1. I may believe that a stub will never become an encyclopedia article, but I may be wrong. Therefore, list on VfD, in case I'm wrong.
  2. I may believe that a stub will never become more than a simple definition, but I may be wrong. Therefore, list on VfD, in case I'm wrong.
3: Scenario: somebody writes two paragraphs of useful text on an encyclopedically important subject area, but neglects to include a decent definition. Listing on VfD gives the author, or someone else, a chance to save the content by adding a decent definition.
Scenario two: somebody finds a picture of someone famous, and creates a new article on that person, initially including just the picture. After uploading all the pictures, they then go through and add stubby biographies.
Scenario three: somebody adds some definition-free content at British history. A sysop doesn't know about the article on History of the United Kingdom, so thinks it should be deleted. If listed on VfD, someone will notice and do a redirecting merge.
However, articles in all three cases can be deleted on sight if they meet one of the seven criteria for instant deletion. Martin 15:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree. (Useful contribution by me there. ;) -- Oliver P. 15:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"No meaningful content" (allowed to delete) overlaps with "stubs that don't even have a decent definition" (not allowed to delete). Useless stubs should be deleted. They don't help someone that actually wants to put some effort into writing a proper article. If the stub makes sense and has something useful then fair enough, but it if doesn't and is never even likely to, then delete it. Angela 14:19, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The intro to that section starts: "If a page does not fall into one of the seven categories listed at the top of this page". Hence, if an article has no meaningful content, then it can be deleted on sight, even though it may also be a definition-free stub. If a definition-free stub has meaningful content, is not a test page or a piece of vandalism, is not very short, is not reposting deleted content, was not created by a banned author, and is not a personal subpage, and does not only contain external links, then it should be listed on VfD rather than deleted on sight. Reasonable? Martin 15:15, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Argh, edit conflict! My reply to Angela is that if someone writes a paragraph about a noteworthy person, but neglects to say what that person actually did that made them noteworthy, then that doesn't have a "decent definition", but I don't think it should be deleted on sight. If a page has some meaningful content, I can't think of a way in which this wouldn't be of help to someone wanting to expand it. They can always just stick some key words into Google, and quite likely end up with a whole load of pages that would enable them to put that information into a meaningful context with very little effort. And if not, it can always be deleted after the seven days on VfD, with little harm done. -- Oliver P. 15:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in replying, real life intervened. I have no objection to what you have both said above, although what counts as patent nonsense may be subjective. Perhaps I should try to be slightly less hasty about what I delete as nonsense. Angela 22:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A recent discussion of the policy in relation to redirects can be found at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects.

Opinions differ as to the correct approach to pages with only external links is not a very useful thing to have on a policy page. Angela

But it is true, which is a benefit. ;-) Martin

more speedy deletion

  1. Deleting a redirect (which has no useful history) to make way for a non-controversial page move.
  2. Temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories after a cut and paste move.

I added these because we already do this. Any objections? Martin 13:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Personal subpages

Can the deletion of user pages requested by the user be added to the list of things that can be deleted immediately? See also Wikipedia talk:Personal subpages to be deleted. Angela 22:51, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

number 7: "Personal subpages that have been listed on Personal subpages to be deleted". I think that covers it. We could change that to "on request (eg, being listed on Personal subpages to be deleted)", but I like the additional transparency of having them listed someplace (aside from the deletion log, that is): cf wikipedia:protected page.
Either way, it looks like we need to clarify the issue a little :) Martin 22:37, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Oops. I'm sure that wasn't there yesterday. :) I'm not sure about the necessity to record them anywhere though. A lot of other pages are deleted without record. Angela 22:50, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

rough consensus

Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators has discussion on what we mean when we say that pages should be deleted as a result of consensus. Please express your views there. Martin 22:48, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Defamation and personality rights

Not to be confused with copyright issues or fair use are the problems that we may have here under the rubric of Wikipedia:Personality rights and defamation deletion policy. These problems can be summed up briefly, libelous statements, publishing private personal information about anyone (including other users). Personality rights are a general category of rights known by terms such as privacy rights, right of publicity, and rights of private life. They include publishing things like a personal information, one's address, one's social security number, etc.. It can also include one's image. Generally speaking it is not proper to publish the image of a private person without their permission (this obviously does not apply to public figures, or people in public in historical images).

There does not seem to be a clear statement about these kinds of postings when done by third parties. I am not discussing the subpage or the personal page issue where someone publishes their own personal information. But the case where a third party does so (of course there is the issue that someone may have a user account and say they are one person but are really another person, good reason not to post anyone's personal home address or telephone number on Wikipedia).

Should not there be a quick deletion policy once such a violation is identified? Alex756 07:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

When describing material on Vfd, is the word "unencyclopedic" useful or useless? Contributors weigh in.

moved from VfD

    • Keep. And I'm hereby starting a campaign against the word "unencyclopedic". It just begs the question. "Unencyclopedic" = "shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia" = "should be deleted from an encyclopaedia". So you're just saying, "This should be deleted because it should be deleted." I think the only meaningful criterion for inclusion of a person (or any other subject) is the amount of verifiable information we can obtain on them. And I think this person has quite enough. (Over 1,000 Google hits, for a start.) And what we have is, in any case, interesting. :) So keep! -- Oliver P. 01:49, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Hear hear! Let us stamp out use of this terribly irritating word. I read "This is unencyclopedic" as "I don't understand this." or "I don't like this." or "I don't think this person is important, even if a million other people do." (cf. snooker player incident) -- Jake 20:05, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • Gee, I'm such a horrid person for having the temerity for acutally listing someone on here that I never heard of. The article never made it clear that the person was someone famous, and heaven forfend, I actually put the name on here. I'm an idiot and deserved to be pilloried, impaled, and set out on an ant hill. Why is it necessary to attack people who add things on here, instead of making a logical discussion of the subjects at hand? RickK 05:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • "unencyclopedic" is simply shorthand for "I don't think this topic is note-worthy or relevant enough to include in an encyclopedia". That's a valid and useful distinction. An encyclopedia should only contain information about note-worthy things. Most relatives of famous people are not note-worthy and are therefore unencyclopedic. Not everyone who's written a book is encyclopedic (there are probably millions of people who have written books). In this case, it's a relative of a famous person who has written a book, and has some unusual views which have presumably come up in the news and embarrassed this famous person. So he may be encyclopedic - I think in this case it's a matter of opinion (that's why we vote). But "unencyclopedic" is still a useful term. Axlrosen 04:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • Hear, hear. RickK 05:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

end of moved text

copied from User talk:Oliver Pereira

Re: "unencyclopedic". I rather like that term, and I believe I use it in the following (not necessarily distinct) non-tautological ways:

  • "unencyclopedic" = "unimportant (my own subjective assessment, of course)"
  • "unencyclopedic" = "does not match my idea of the Platonic ideal of encyclopedic content"
  • "unencyclopedic" = "readers don't come to an encyclopedia looking for that info"
  • "unencyclopedic" = "when readers see this material, it will adversely affect their opinion of Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information"

I suppose I could use the longer phrases...

Cheers, Cyan 03:37, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, if the term means lots of different things to you, perhaps it would be good to use the longer explanations; otherwise we wouldn't know which one you meant. :) I think the main problem with the term is that everyone has a different idea of what an encyclopaedia should be, so unless you can be sure that you are using it to people who have the same idea as you, it's not very helpful. I'll tell you my idea of the ideal encyclopaedia. I think the goal should be complete coverage of all human knowledge. :) Unattainable, of course, but what Platonic ideals aren't? I think that general encyclopedias were always meant to contain all of human knowledge, but that they were frustrated in getting anywhere near that goal by all sorts of constraints. Early encyclopaedists had limited staff (usually staff need to be paid), limited time (they have to publish the finished version at some point), and limited space (who would buy a 1,000,000 volume encyclopaedia?). Wikipedia doesn't suffer from the same constraints. It has millions of potential editors, doesn't need to pay them, there's no publication deadline, and hard discs are cheap! So I think the traditional idea of what an encyclopaedia is can be pretty much thrown away. :) -- Oliver P. 04:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind if enter your conversation... I have always been unhappy with the fact that "unencyclopedic", when used as an argument in dispute, is much frowned upon and often regarded useless. Philosphical problems (read: tautological definition) aside, I think it would be very helpful if Wikipedia had a stated ideal of what an encyclopedia should be. Do you know of any (failed?) attempts at reaching a consensus about this? Best, Kosebamse 07:33, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC) - or, to put it differently (as there are, of course, endless debates about what an encyclopedia should be): has there been any discussion resulting in a consensus that the term "unencyclopedic" is not a valid argument? Kosebamse 07:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I have to disagree completely with "I think the goal should be complete coverage of all human knowledge." Frankly, that would be useless - there would be so much information that it would overwhelm the reader. It would be information, but it would cease to be knowledge. The job of an encyclopedia is to serve as a filter (created by humans) of all possible human knowledge, so as to include the wheat and exclude the chaff (aka the "unencyclopedic"). The NYC phone book is part of "all human knowledge", should that be included? How about every phone book in the world? No, there are better sources for that information than Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia, Platonic or not). Similarly for every primary school in the world, or every relative of every actor, or everything that gets a few dozen hits on Google. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. (FYI This semi-rant is directed as much at the geo-bot debate as the "unencyclopedic" debate.) Axlrosen 21:56, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

end of copied text

I agree with Oliver P., people should be more specific if they have objections against an article text than using this vague general term "unencyclopedic". - Patrick 08:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, "unencyclopedic" is the most precise way to say that something should not be included in an encyclopedia - VfD could be retitled list of unencyclopedic articles - and says nothing more. Cyan's list above is good; people should say which of the four things they really mean when they say "unencyclopedic". I think in some cases the the word is just a six-syllable way to avoid voicing one's real objections in a form that could be rebutted point by point. Stan 13:24, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Actually, the most precise and concise way is the verb "delete"... Martin 21:29, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your concerns Oliver, I have no problem with "unencyclopedic" being given as the reason for listing a page. The aim is to give a brief description on why you are listing something here, not a 500 word essay on the meaning of unencyclopedic and how such a term may be applied to the article in question. Everyone knows what it means. If others wish to point out why something should be included, then they can do that, but 'unencyclopedic' is a great way of putting across what is wrong with an article in a single word, and possibly a more diplomatic way of saying what you really think of an article. As for Jake's comment on "the snooker player incident" – I fail to see what the problem is here. The whole point of VfD is that it prevents mistaken deletions taking place. It gives people a week to point out that in fact someone is famous. You can't expect all Wikipedians to be familiar with every sporting hero or otherwise 'famous' person. Rick hadn't heard of him - fair enough – it wasn't deleted, so what's the problem? It was perfectly valid for Rick to list the page here as at the time the 37 word 'article' gave no indication that this person was "encyclopedic". Angela 21:02, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)

It's vague: precision is good. "incomprehensible" or "rant" or "nonsense" or "never heard of this person" or "too obscure" or "fails google test" or "uninformative" or "unhelpful" or "vehicle for advertising" or ....
By all means use "unencyclopedic" when you don't really know, or can't put into words, why you want to delete something. That's what I do. Martin 21:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with unencyclopædic. It is a perfectly straight-forward term with an obvious meaning - does this belong in an encyclopædia? The implicit questions raised by the term are:

  1. Is the topic worthy of enclusion in an encyclopædia? (Josef Stalin clearly is, Shades of nail-varnish clearly isn't, unless it is an article that charts the use of colour in female make-up from say a historical perspective, etc. List of Albums by the Eagles clearly is. My Pet Dog is called woofy isn't, unless it is the name of an album, book, film etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to spot the encyclopædic from the unencyclopædic.
  2. Is the content encyclopædic? (ie, is it neutral, informative, balanced, well written, etc?)
  3. If the content currently isn't, can it be made so? If the topic isn't, can it be made so? If the answer is no, then the article belongs as some scribble on the back of a notepad but not on wikipedia, just as it would not get into Encyclopedia Brittanica, World Book, etc.

The issue is perfectly clear and an obvious reference point for deciding what should and what should not be in an encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN 22:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I guess I'd just prefer to see these things made explicit. Hence: rather than:
One would have:
* shades of nail varnish - trivia, unimportant topic. Martin 22:45, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
* Alan Davies - current content irredeemably POV. Martin 22:45, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I just think the latter is more useful to folks reading the VfD page. Martin 22:45, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
When I have used the word unencyclopedic in the past, I meant that it did not belong here for a wide variety of reasons I thought would be obvious to everyone else too (like obscenity, "I know it when I see it."), however, some have disagreed (for example, I can think of a dozen places I'd look to find an Eagles discography before trying an encyclopedia, however, speaking as one who has struggled with being colorblind and using nail varnish, I'd love for someone to finally explain to me what Cleopatra or Zing or WetNWild #401 actually are, especially if they could provide the nearest Pantone or CMYK numbers!) so perhaps clarification is always a good idea. So, I'll stop using the word. -- Paige 03:47, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about simply "unencyclopedic, reason why"? Best of both worlds :) Dysprosia 03:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yep, the best of the world of redundancy coupled with the best of the world of rational discourse. :) But still, even the best of the world of redundancy is still redundant, so best to leave it out, I think. Angela says, "The aim is to give a brief description on why you are listing something here," and I entirely agree. My point is that the word "unencyclopedic" is not such a description. It gives no further information than that already conveyed by the fact that something is being listed on Vfd in the first place: that it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. I think it is only courteous for people to say why they think that. After all, others might disagree, and they frequently do. What we should aim for is a consensus on what should and should not be deleted, and there is no hope of any consensus being formed if people won't even say what their problems with articles are. (Sorry for dragging this up again after a week, but I took a break from the Wikipedia, and I have to have my say!) -- Oliver P. 07:05, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Biased articles

I disagree with the following:

Article X is totally biased!

Take it to pages needing attention or NPOV dispute. You don't need the VfD page for that.

It depends on the page. Most pages that are biased should indeed be NPOVed, but sometimes they simply contain only POV rant, from which no NPOV information can be distilled. POV pages should go on VfD if, after removing the POV, what is left would be small enough for putting on VfD or straightout deletion.

As an example: "President Bush should not have invaded Iraq in 2003. He didn't do it to fight terrorism, but only for the oil, and millions of Iraqis have died" should be NPOVed. "Bush is a murderer who likes to kill people and deserves to die." should be deleted. Andre Engels 20:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What you say makes sense. Want to add something to the policy page? Something like "Keep pages that are not neutral, adding an NPOV dispute header. But list pages that contain only POV rant, from which no NPOV information can be distilled"... or something better than that. Martin 21:22, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Administrators' judgement"

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment in making this decision.

I don't believe this statement is true. Maybe the reality now is that deletion decisions are made according to the judgements of individual administrators, rather than by the consensus of the wider community of Wikipedians, but it has not always been this way, and it doesen't necessarily have to be this way in future. I point out that Wikimedia's first press release currently says that Wikipedia operates "by consensus". Since this appears not to be entirely true, maybe we should consider amending it. GrahamN 20:28, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC), amended 7 October

So you're saying that sysops don't have to use their best judgement? Evercat 20:45, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes. In my opinion they shouldn't have to use any judgement at all. Their role should be merely to enact the consensus decision. GrahamN 20:52, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC), amended 7 October

Have you ever looked at Wikipedia:Deletion log? There are maybe 100 deletions a day. Do you really expect a "consensus decision" for all of them? Evercat 21:20, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think Graham sees himself as wiki's Moses, leading wiki to some sort of consensus heaven. If every page that is currently deleted on sight had to be put onto the VfD page, the page would hit 200K regularly and wiki would slow to a crawl. GrahamN's naivety is almost comic. FearÉIREANN 22:00, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[Off-topic] Jtdirl, could I persuade you to change your default abbreviation for Wikipedia to "WP" (or "the 'pedia" as others use but that doesn't shorten it much!) I think calling it "wiki" doesn't fit right with all the other wikis out there. Just my 2c which you can ignore if you can't get out of the habit! Thanks. Pete 12:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You have both made my point for me. If you deliberately tried to design a system that would make consensus decisions as difficult as possible, you could hardly do better, could you? I consider the "Votes for Deletion" system to be an anachronism. We don't have a "Votes for Re-naming" page, a "Votes for Blanking" page, or a "Votes for This Particular Edit That I Would Like To Make to The Manic Street Preachers Article" page. Consensus happens everywhere else on Wikipedia using that rather clever thing, the "Wiki". It may not be a perfect form of consensus - bullies tend to get their way rather more often than we might wish - but it is how Wikipedia works. I can't understand why we treat deletion decisions differently from any other kind of decision. A simple software tweak would make links to blanked articles appear the same as links to non-existent articles. Anybody could then "delete" or "undelete" any page by simply blanking it or reverting it. With a few other minor software tweaks, deletion decisions could be then made by exactly the same brand of consensus that is used for every other decision here - the brand of consensus that has made Wikipedia such a success. Please see meta:Talk:Deletion management redesign. GrahamN 20:36, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A simple software tweak would make links to blanked articles appear the same as links to non-existent articles.
I think this is the heart of a very good point. There might be a wrinkle to sort out with regard to copyrights (i.e. sometimes we might have to 'hard-delete' to stay legal, need to ask the legally minded about this). I think we should also check that carrying a certain amount of blanked junk around is not going to add more strain on the server than is currently the case. With these points in mind, I support GrahamN's proposal. Pete 12:47, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pros and Cons of Graham's proposal (please add/edit this) Terminology: 'Soft delete': Blanking of page, links to page appears as anon existent page link 'Hard delete': Deletion as it is carried out now, only sysops can delete/undelete

Pros:

  1. Because soft deletion can be trivially reverted, it is less of a big deal. All users could do it, dramatically increasing openness and democratic nature of WP.
  2. Decisions to soft delete could be made the same way as all other wikipedia decisions... unilaterally if the change is 'obvious' or through discussion on the talk page if more tricky.
  3. No need for an overlong Votes for Deletion page that often provides more heat than light.

Cons:

  1. More potential for damage? Vandals who decide to blank pages wreak slightly more havoc as they cause red links to appear on other pages.
Potential mitigating factor: Vandals rarely get away with their dastardly work.
  1. More strain on server, with more pages for it remember/linkify
Potential mitigating factor: This may be a non-issue as the server has to remember hard-deleted pages already in case they need to be undeleted. Expert technical advice required.
  1. The disappearance of VfD would amount to the loss of a real community page where lots of users interact, and get to hear about recent developments.
  2. May add extra strain to another oft-edited page, the Village Pump, as people rush there to say... blanking of X is being considered... please come and support/deny it at the talk page... maybe we'd end up with a pages where blanking is being considered page which could (given how built-in the VfD way is) become a de-facto VfD
  3. Some developer work required.
Mitigating factor: Might not be that much work through. Given that we have a Wikipedia:Blank pages page it looks like the facility for detecting blank pages is already in code.

Pete 13:57, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy&oldid=1543039"