Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:DEL WT:DP

37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51Auto-archiving period: 180 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Archives

Non-numbered archives from 2003 Lag time Redirects Various from Village pump Sept 2003 Schools Title

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

I write in the wrong place but could not find any proper. Sorry. Long ago a couple of original researches were moved from Wikipedia to Wikiversity instead of deletion. Wikeversity allows original research and even has a category of pages moved from Wikipedia. Why it is not practiced longer and wider? Some original researches are well-written and well-sourced. Is not better moving such articles to Wikiversity instead of deleting?--Maxaxa (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Third relists. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, ATD-I reads Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. On 8 June 2023‎ Joe Roe altered this to Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue, in a manner similar to an earlier but less elegant edit I made.

I think this is a reasonable and uncontroversial edit; per

BeanieFan11, can you explain what objections you have to the change? BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Beanie's edit summaries indicate that they have a procedural concern that the change should be put up for discussion to see if there is consensus. Are you now putting this up for discussion? Why do you think the change is warranted? What other venue(s) do you believe are suitable? It would be helpful to have some clarification on that. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Normally, you don't insist that a change is discussed unless you actually have an issue with the change;

  consensus can be achieved through editing

  . As such, I am hoping that BeanieFan11 can explain what their issue with the change is.

  Other venues that the community accepts as suitable are

  WP:VPR; others may exist but I cannot think of them at the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My reason for reverting is that making a somewhat major change to policy to support a proposed RFC as its happening should not occur; there needs to be consensus for such a change. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The change was made months ago, after a previous RfC that demonstrated the community supported the underlying principle expressed in the change. Do you have any non-procedural objections to the change? BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're the one who's all about

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and that a small group of editors sharing one opinion are not enough to overrule policy (I'm not talking about the RFC but about this change; also, GRuban in the close used IAR as the reason for it to have consensus, showing that he believed the policy still was valid and that the discussion was not enough to change it); so you alone, most certainly, do not have the power to make a major change to policy in support of your personal views. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  See

  WP:EDITCONSENSUS

  . Objecting solely on the grounds that we need an RfC to change policy is not aligned with practice or policy.

  Please, just explain what your objection to this change is. As far as I can tell it is rather uncontroversial, as I explained in my opening comment.

  (As for

  WP:LUGSTUBS consensus to align this policy with that policy.) BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Objecting solely on the grounds that we need an RfC to change policy is not aligned with practice or policy. – Exactly:

  WP:CANVASSING as well) is also not based in policy. I simply disagree that you can make major changes to policy to support a series of controversial RFCs that you're proposing. That's my objection. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm asking you to explain why you are disputing it; to explain what issues you can see this change causing, or why you don't see it addressing the current

  WP:BRD. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't see how you're not understanding this: I disagree that you should make a somewhat major policy change like this–without consensus or any real discussion whatsoever (besides with me)–in order to support a series of controversial RFCs you're launching. I repeat, that's what I object to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This change was made months ago, as a consequence of the consensus of

  WP:LUGSTUBS

  showing that the community didn't agree with the exact wording of the policy. It is unrelated to the current RfC.

  But that isn't relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that you still haven't explained why you disagree with the change; you've only explained why you disagree with me making the change. To put it another way: If an RfC was held, the closer would dismiss the arguments you have presented here as having no basis in policy.

  Perhaps you will understand what I am asking for better if I put it in a different way; if an RfC was held, how would you !vote and what justification would you present for your vote? BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Another suitable venue" is a bit vague. Should the Village Pump not be named specifically? Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If venues other than AfD are mentioned (and I'm not convinced they should be) it should read something like "or, exceptionally, at the Village Pump". Two very controversial discussions, one of which achieved a narrow consensus and the other has not yet concluded (and which is not clearly headed for a consensus either way), do not demonstrate that other venues are routinely appropriate venues in the same was AfD is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I imagine the only two suitable venues would be the Village Pump and ANI. The latter has certainly seen consensuses to delete articles, including very large groups of articles, and I believe it has seen consensuses to draft articles. I think it is cleaner if we just write "another suitable venue", but I don't mind if we are more specific. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since discussion seems to have died out, does anyone have any non-procedural objections to this change? In other words, does any editor have a reason why venues like the Village Pump should not be permitted to come to a consensus that an article or group of articles should be draftified? BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object (making it explicit since my implicit objection above was apparently not clear). ANI and the Village Pump are very occasional, controversial exceptions that are outside the normal processes. Any inclusion must be worded carefully to reflect that, but nobody has presented any reasons why inclusion is either necessary or beneficial at all. Thryduulf (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that it doesn’t align with practice and it violates

WP:NOTBURO

. It’s bureaucratic silliness that ANI and the village pump are allowed to delete articles but not draftify them, and it’s also bureaucratic silliness to forbid us from establishing a consensus to draftify articles in locations that are more visible and receive more participation than AFD.

Can you explain why you believe such locations are not suitable? At the moment, your objection is supplying you stating that you consider it controversial. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial matters should never be added to policies, especially core policies, without explicit consensus. Also, as I've said previously, two very controversial discussions also does not indicate that this is usual practice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really relevant, but this isn't a

WP:OR

.

I'm trying to understand why you consider it controversial; what potential issues you see with it. The proposals were controversial, but that doesn't mean that allowing such proposals in such a venue is controversial.

Perhaps it will help if I ask the same question I asked BeanieFan11: if an RfC was held, how would you !vote and what justification would you present for your vote? BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I would !vote in an RFC, it would depend on what arguments are presented in favour of its inclusion and exclusion. My strongest opinion is that significant changes to major (even if not technically core) policies should never happen without consensus, especially when the aim is (arguably) to normalise rare and controversial scenarios. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a significant change, given that it aligns the policy with

WP:NOTBURO and given that no one has presented any actual objections to it? Honestly, the idea of holding an RfC without anyone actually presenting an argument against the change seems wasteful to me. BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

without anyone actually presenting an argument against the change I and two other editors have presented a mix of procedural and non-procedural arguments against the change (either entirely or as specifically worded). Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural arguments aren't relevant; we're

not a bureaucracy

, and there is nothing requiring changes to policy to be done by RfC. As far as I can tell, the only non-procedural objection is that this change is "controversial", which is hard to justify when no one has presented an actual argument against the change.

I do note Harper J. Cole's comments about the wording, but we don't need a RfC to wordsmith this. Perhaps Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as

WP:NOTBURO, for there may be venues that are suitable that we can't think of here, while establishing that there are limitations on what venues are suitable. BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Your claim that no one has presented an actual argument against the change. is simply false, please stop repeating it. Whether you agree with the reasons presented or not they have been presented. If you want to see the change enacted you need to actually get consensus for it, rather than complain that you shouldn't need to get it. It's clear you don't think it should be controversial, that's fine, but it is controversial so you need to deal with that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the change. "Suitable venue" is awfully vague. Sounds like I can just go to any article's talk page, say "it should be draftified" for any reason, and if anyone agrees, or just if nobody objects, then there's consensus. What could be a more suitable venue than the article talk page if deletion process venues are no longer relevant? Part of my objections to these efforts to get rid of thousands of stubs by draftification rfc is it tosses aside the article consideration that has long been baked into the deletion policy. This change, combined with the rfcs, opens up deletion-by-draftification to any article, again without basic consideration of the things we want (or at least used to want) to be considered before deleting something. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would this version address your concerns: Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as

  the village pump? BilledMammal (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It would partially resolve the hypothetical, but not the broader concern. I'm not going to support a change that tries to further legitimize use of draftification to circumvent the entire rest of this policy. The reason it's worded the way it is is to ensure it's not used for back door deletion (i.e. it still requires going through the deletion process and policy). That spite for Lugnuts and/or mass creation pushed a sufficient number of people to support ignoring the deletion process doesn't mean we should alter the process to make doing so a valid approach to deletion in all future cases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And this will still prevent backdoor deletions; the community will be made aware of what is being proposed and will have the opportunity to challenge and reject it. It isn't going to permit editors to quietly move articles to draft space.

  But honestly, I don't understand the issues you see with this. I think you would agree that these are major proposals with significant impact, that should be heavily scrutinized by the community. Given that, why would we want to require these discussions be held at a less visible venue - namely, AfD? BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfCs are backdoor deletion not in the sense of "nobody saw them" but in the sense that they delete without going through the deletion processes we have. An RfC to mass delete-by-draftification based solely on [creator] + [size] + [type of reference] isn't following the reasons, process, etc. for deletion, and I'm not going to support changes which make it seem as though it is. The Lugnuts RfC is not inherently generalizable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @BilledMammal, Rhododendrites, and Thrduulf: Doing this again, eh? I still think we would need to have an RFC / discussion on this exact change which finds consensus to make such a change... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Two RFCs that pass narrowly, with caveats, is not evidence that a change to a policy (that was not significantly discussed in those RFCs) to make such discussions generalisable is uncontroversial. Indeed the comments on this page demonstrate the change is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Deletion should not be used for

archiving

a page.

Are there any objections to me removing this section? The two processes are sufficiently distinct that confusion between them seems unlikely, so I'm not sure what purpose this serves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't see how that section adds anything useful either. RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of articles, of which a large chunk have problems, and a good number could be contested for deletion. What mechanisms are there, if any, to prevent a prejudiced editor from selectively targeting articles about minorities and persecuted groups for deletion? Is there any policy or mechanism to ensure deletion policy is applied equally across all types of articles? Or is this a free for all-and its just too bad if articles about certain groups are just more likely to be contested? Jagmanst (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is dealt with by behavioural policies rather than the deletion policy. If you have concerns that this is happening then see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow the process there to highlight it at the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here got me wondering about this. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Our_Lady_of_Fatima_Senior_Secondary_School,_Aligarh Until February 2017, a high school simply had to verifiably exist to meet SNG. What should we do with regard to existing articles made well before new guidelines took effect that may not pass the new guidelines (GNG/NCORP)? I suspect many schools in small communities that do not have much coverage would cease to be eligible for inclusion if new guidelines were to be retroactively applied. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would not recommend trying to get community approval for a mass deletion. :) I suspect that ad-hoc AfDs will be the only viable path to removing articles about schools for which notability cannot be established. Donald Albury 18:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-2017 high school articles are indeed regularly deleted at AfD on GNG grounds (examples), but there are so many of them that working through the backlog will take decades, probably. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh. I missed that guideline change entirely. I hadn't thought we'd ever even start to undo the damage the Radman1/GRider sockfarm did to the notability guidelines in general and the school one in particular, almost 20 years ago now. —

Cryptic 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't read the whole discussion but I had no idea if we should let these old articles be, or retroactively apply the guidelines. I wish this was stated clearly in the guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't grandfather articles in; they have to meet the current guidelines, and whether they met historic ones is irrelevant. With that said, I don't know much about the school notability dispute, so I can't suggest a course of action on how to deal with them. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to redirect them to the district/county/town/etc in which they reside, and only send to AFD if that edit is contested. Saves community time while still allowing for an unnecessary article to be removed from circulation. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and redirecting to the school districts (in the US and Canada)/the populated place they are located in/serve (elsewhere) is almost always the best way to deal with verifiable but non-notable schools as the vast majority are plausible search terms for things people do look up in Wikipedia. There are exceptions but not so many that they overload AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although, we don't necessarily want some highly NN parochial school (which are not part of the public school district) being merged into a prominent article like Los Angeles. redirect fine, merge, no way! Graywalls (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE. Instead a better would more often be the article about the relevant neighbourhood or education in (a subdivision of) the city concerned. The best target and how much to merge (in some cases everything suitable will already be at the target) needs to be considered individually and of course there will be examples where there is no appropriate target to merge or redirect to. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I often see articles about obviously notable topics (such as this one) that were deleted because they weren't well-written. But deletion is not cleanup; should articles about notable topics be deleted for that reason alone? Jarble (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, yes.

The article title and thus "topic" of your example is notable, but according to the AFD (I have not looked at the deleted content) the actual page did not contain information on that topic. In other words, the existing article would need to be entirely erased to make way for a new article, thereby making "blow it up and start over" a valid deletion rationale. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, if the article from creation to current time is using bad sourcing or other content that wholly violated the core content policies, such that the only reasonable way to improve the article is to start from scratch.

When there is a reasonable amount of salvageable material, then TNT should not be used, and instead rework the article to retain the material to be kept. Masem (t) 14:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no.

Reading through TNT, the clause most often cited is a reference to

WP:VAGUEWAVEs at TNT all the time, without reference to its scope: A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over i.e. create them de novo. Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content. (wikilinks not maintained) That says absolutely nothing about "it currently sucks SO BAD the encyclopedia would be better off with no article."

One point of belief unsupported by evidence is that TNT'ing an article will prompt someone else to create a better article. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever tried to substantiate this argument, and since modern deletion tools tend to remove links to deleted articles--if it was ever true at any point, it's almost certainly not true now. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• I see TNT as a case of IAR. A TNT is a decision to disregard our normal rules because the content's so bad it would consume a disproportionate amount of volunteer time to fix, and it would be easier to start over.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Briefly, yes. I don't see this as IAR but instead as the basic assessment that deletion is a perfectly good outcome from a totally-failing article where improvement meant basically re-creating the article de novo. It also dissuades people from writing totally-failing articles and then throwing the work of actually writing the articles on to other editors. FOARP (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of discussions where it seems to be assumed that an alternative outcome is assumed to be preferable to deletion. I don't agree with this; I think any outcome suggested has to stand on its own merits. But in any case the matter needs to be spelled out. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs to be spelled out. I disagree that what you wrote accurately reflects consensus, and have modified it appropriately. No hurt feelings if someone else reverts it entirely and goes back to the prior status quo... but what you wrote isn't consensus. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PRESERVE. – Joe (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)\[reply

]

Preserve is one of those constantly-misapplied and misinterpreted policies, so it's important to be extremely cautious when citing it. It says to consider alternatives; it's entirely reasonable for that consideration to end with "no, we're best deleting it." Certainly it is not equivalent to the flat statement that those alternatives must be considered. Likewise, the other bit you quoted has an obvious unspoken secondary aspect (which perhaps we should make explicit, but which is clearly there) - if the article has been improved to the point where it can't be improved further, and the problem is still there, then it should be deleted. All that it says, in other words, is that we shouldn't delete articles for problems that are reasonably fixable; it certainly doesn't mandate prioritizing redirection over deletion or anything like that. This proposal would go far beyond that and would make every alternative to deletion a hard requirement even in situations where deletion is clearly the best option. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative outcome is generally preferable to deletion although there are obviously exceptions. If we are changing the status quo (and I'm not presently convinced of a need), then Jclemens' wording Editors need to consider the possibility of other resolutions besides outright deletion, as are listed below. While these actions must be justifiable on their own merits, they are intrinsically preferable to deletion. If you would not take the action in the absence of the discussion, then it's probably not a good outcome. is significantly better than Mangoe's. It's not perfect, e.g. while I might think that merging X to Y is a good idea and justifiable on its merits, I wouldn't do it if the AfD hadn't showed a consensus against a stand-alone article and that seems to go against the "in the absence of the discussion" part. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the addition at issue (and have re-reverted it) because it asserts that alternatives "are intrinsically preferable to deletion". That is not so; for material that does not belong on Wikipedia (

WP:NOT) deletion is generally the best and only option. Also, the statement that "If you would not take the action in the absence of the discussion, then it's probably not a good outcome" simply makes no sense to me; it is unintelligible. Sandstein 16:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If there is a viable alternative to deletion then that alternative is preferable to deletion. Something being NOT does not always preclude there being alternatives, e.g. in some cases the content can be merged and/or redirected to a relevant article or soft-redirected (or occasionally transwikied) to a sister project. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is wording to the effect that editing and discussing is preferable to deletion. That does not apply to merging, deletion, incubation, and transwiki-ing, since it does not appear in the relevant sections for them or in a preamble to ATD. It makes sense that it would be like this - editing and discussing essentially result in keeping the article in mainspace, whilst none of the other ones do. FOARP (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion

I am starting an

Your last list should probably have a catchall that says "or content that otherwise is

WP:NOT#not appropriate for an encyclopedia." (and while I would link to TNT, that's an essay, and better not to tempt that). Even though you've worded it that there are other reasons why we delete, I can easily see some will game that to same "You're suggesting a reason to delete not given in DP#Alts! You can't do that!" Masem (t) 23:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that a catchall would be useful, but I've had trouble coming up with a good wording for that. or content that otherwise is

WP:NOTDICT into another article, but the policy could be read as supporting deletion over merging in those cases. See also Thryduulf's here. I am open to other wordings as I think we should have a catchall. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Introductory paragraphs usually clarify and summarise existing content, but this proposal seems to represent a change of policy. All viable alternatives should certainly be considered seriously, but is there prior consensus that they are always preferable to deletion? Certes (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There emphatically is not. What constitutes an improvement to a page is a matter of editorial judgement, not how well you time your "redirect to

Cryptic 23:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am open to suggestions from editors about stronger wording than "viable" to exclude alternatives to deletion that are unreasonable. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe's version is a much less accurate representation of the principles enshrined by existing policies and guidelines than any of the other suggestions I've seen in the past few days. That pages get deleted under G11 does not change this, because either they are so bad that editing them to be neutral or merging them to existing content elsewhere is not viable or they are being deleted incorrectly. Nothing that has a viable alternative to deletion should be being speedily deleted, if you know otherwise then please talk to the deleting admin and list them at DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem arises in, again, the phrase "If editing can improve the page". That kind of decision has always, always been a matter of editorial judgment, subject to and requiring consensus on a case-by-case basis. Compressing it to "viable" exacerbates the problem, and the rest of the proposed addition even more so. The deletions I'm talking about are correct. The policy change being pushed for here would make them incorrect.

An example: the most recent G11 speedy when I started writing this was

Cryptic 22:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As others have pointed out, writing rules well is difficult. If an article says that Elvis Priestly is alive on the moon, and I fix the spelling, I have "improved the page", but not enough to make it a Keep. Certes (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says in the "Editing and discussion" subsection, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." This quote supports the view that viable alternatives to deletion are preferred over alternatives to deletion. There have been disagreements in past deletion reviews over this. Some editors (including I) think the policy does prefer viable alternatives to deletion, while some other editors do not. The introductory paragraph gives clearer guidance on the issue. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

viable alternatives to deletion are preferred over alternatives to deletion Do you mean "preferred over deletion"? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I've fixed my comment. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is any

WP:ATD not covered under the umbrella of 'editing'? I do not believe any are, to include redirection and merging, and hence support Cunard's wording as adding nothing new to longstanding policy, just clarifying that the directive to use deletion as a last resort really does mean last resort. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There's good reasons to believe that "editing" in the phrase "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" presently in the "Editing and discussion" section of

WP:ATD

does not include redirection/merging/incubation/transwiking. They include:

• "Editing and discussion" and "Redirection"/"Merging"/"Incubation"/"Other Projects" are entirely different sections of ATD, all at the same level. "Editing and discussion" is not the preamble to the rest of the ATD section, it only relates to a specific alternative to deletion: editing and discussion, and tells us that this is preferable to deletion.
• Logically, deleting the whole page and redirecting it to another page (a necessary step in both redirection and merging) is not simply editing the page to improve it, it is effectively deleting the page. Incubation also involves effectively deleting the page from mainspace, as does Transwikiing. A perfectly viable interpretation of "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" is that it tells us that "Editing and discussion" is preferable to deletion, or alterantively that it is preferable to all of the other ATDs as well as deletion, and not that all ATDs are preferable to deletion. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Drop first subsection and craft into preamble is my alternate suggestion in a nutshell. This non-headered section can become something like the following. Note that I'm focusing the section on articles as that is the focus of most general editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that an article does not meet

one of the many Speedy Deletion criteria

, deletion is not always the best approach to dealing with article content problems. Chief among the alternatives is Discussion and Editing. If editing can improve the article, this should be done rather than deleting the article.

If editing of the article has led to disputes among editors over article content, such disputes are not usually dealt with by deleting the article—except in the most severe of cases. Discussion on

a Request for Comment

are key ways forward from the dispute.

Some types of article or page content problems should be dealt with through alternatives to deletion as the first resort, among these being:

• Vandalism: content added as vandalism can be reverted by any user (as long as the page is not protected from editing—yes protected and semi-protected pages can suffer from vandalism)
• Verifiability: the article for an otherwise notable topic which severely fails
  Articles for Deletion process
  .
• Neutral Point of View: Some editors have been
  topic-banned
  or worse for repeated creation of biased articles. Biased articles can often be addressed through alternatives to deletion, sometimes involving moving the article due to a clearly biased title. The goal would not be to quash a point of view, but to present the article topic in an unbiased manner.
• Disagreements over policy or guideline: Typically this is not dealt with through deletion of the policy or guideline, or deletion of articles that adhere to a disputed policy or guideline.
• Inappropriate user pages: These are usually dealt with through discussion with the user.
• Violations of living person and copyright policies: These article content issues are usually dealt with through editing the article AND
  deleting specific old-versions of the article

Following are sections detailing several alternatives to deletion beyond the baseline discussion and editing approach.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this goes too far in the other direction by excluding speedies entirely. I do think there is near-universal consensus, for example, that reversion to a non-speedyable version of a page is always preferable to deletion - sometimes accompanied by revdelling the intervening versions (such as copyvios or extreme vandalism), yes, but never the entire page. —

Cryptic 02:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I like a lot of the ideas expressed this proposed wording, especially "Violations of living person and copyright policies: These article content issues are usually dealt with through editing the article AND

deleting specific old-versions of the article". I think it would be for the policy to include both some of this wording and the wording I proposed. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I think there are competing issues here that shouldn't be tackled together for procedural reasons. Any proposed introduction must come directly from the current approved language in
  WP:ATD and not add to or alter that language or shift nuance/emphasis. Otherwise its doing something other than summarizing. If the goal is to change content in ATD, than that should happen in an RFC discussing the language in the body of ATD and not in an RFC on a proposed summary. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I planned to propose this addition in an RfC. Do you think the proposed addition "add[s] to or alter[s] that language or shift nuance/emphasis"? If it does, where and how could this language about "preferring alternatives to deletion over deletion except in certain cases like BLP and copyright violations" be added to the body of the ATD? Cunard (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments where sources are not actually found and produced. I can see ATD with this language allowing article to be kept because they "will get better with editing" someday, somehow, and by some unknown person who will find and add those sources that must exist somewhere even if in reality those sources don't exist and that editor never appears. I wouldn't support any language that places our options into some sort of hierarchal order. Each article should be evaluated individually with our options open to pursue deletion or an alternative on an equal footing.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Look, if you don't want to work here, you don't have to, but the existing policy language preferring improvement over deletion is a longstanding part of Wikipedia that was here when I started 17 years ago. You're trying to suggest that the existing policy (If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.) isn't policy and this clarification is somehow raising the bar to delete an article. The relevant policy goal is now, and has always been, per my paraphrase, "Improve stuff that sucks, delete stuff that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia even if it were to be improved, and organize topics into pages that makes sense." Deletion is not a way to improve overall article quality; that would be editing. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ANI for a continuing pattern of harassment. 4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

When you started editing Wikipedia, you agreed to join a collaborative project. The project had expectations, including the longstanding deletion policy wording I quoted. The fact that you disagree about the plain sense of words or the implications thereof isn't unique, but that doesn't mean it's correct, either. The fact that you see my post as a personal attack suggests you are too focused on how your opinions are received, rather than building an encyclopedia that necessarily relies on suboptimum and incomplete articles as building blocks for better articles. The immediately prior sentence, BTW, is far more of a personal attack than anything I wrote above. By all means, please report me to ANI for the torrid incivility in these posts. I'll bring the popcorn. If you choose to not (which would be a prudent choice, I believe), then please stop accusing me of various hypothetical high crimes and misdemeanors which have never happened... except, perhaps, in your own perception of my conduct. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, I already reported you once before for WikiHounding me across several pages about a year ago and you were given a warning by an admin to leave me alone. Please stick to that.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on posting to policy talk pages, you consent to interaction with all interested editors here. If you keep on focusing on your dislike of my policy-based argumentation and pretending that such constitute personal attacks, someone will likely tell you to knock it off. And, finally, if you post I won't be responding to your comments further, please do everyone a favor and comport yourself consistently with your freely chosen statements. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • If there are to be two proposals – one to change policy and one to summarise it – then they should occur in that order. To evaluate the summary properly, we need to know whether it explains current or revised policy. Certes (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The disconnect, I suspect, is that some editors who disagree with policy as written believe that the proposal to summarize it is a proposal to change it. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The concern I have about this proposal is the colossal impact it would have on our ongoing efforts to clean up after Lugnuts.—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts is just one of several such efforts affected. Geostubs are another, with a "redirect" proposal to some larger geographical entity being often made as though it were required by ATD. As the instigator of this, my problem with the current wording of ATD is that IMO it encourages an "article rescue" perspective on the various alternatives. I'm not opposed an alternative when it makes sense, but to make sense, it has to be reasonable outside of the context of imminent deletion, and it seems to me that a lot of times this isn't the case. I don't think adding the word "viable" is enough, because everyone thinks their proposal is viable and we really don't have a standard addressing when it isn't except to argue over each case. The most typical problem with a geostub is that the article mischaracterizes the place in question, and that the real nature of the place tends force the application of GNG; thus people propose redirects when the enclosing place doesn't mention the place and is not likely to ever do so, or does list the place now— repeating the mischaracterization. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my perception at all. A few months back, I advocated that AfD be renamed 'discussion' precisely because that's what we've started doing: when an article is brought up, multiple alternatives are considered rather than deletion or keeping it unchanged. This is a good thing. As far as geostubs, I don't have any real knowledge of that area, and would welcome some explanation of why redirecting the article of some insignificant place that showed up in a database once, to the larger area or region in which that insignificant place appears, is a bad default. As always "Delete and don't redirect because this [isn't mentioned at the target|is confusing|is erroneous]" are always reasonable AfD entries. All ATDs do is expect that a discussion consider all, not just boolean, alternatives to make the encyclopedia a better place. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing: yes, those are reasonable responses to a "redirect" proposal. And I find myself having to make them constantly, and I find my objection on that grounds being ignored frequently. That's the origin of my "it has to be an reasonable/viable/consensus-able action in its own right, and not just as a defense against deletion" wording attempts: in the geostubs discussions when we are not arguing over

WP:GEOLAND

, we get "redirect" proposals which come across as "well, I can suggest some redirect, so you can't delete this." And there really is no consensus about this as a whole: in some discussions it works, and in some it doesn't, and much of the time it's not brought up at all.

Or to put the issue another way: it has seemed to me for a long time that the alternatives section comes with the implicit assertion that the most important thing is to avoid deletion, when (again, it seems to me) deletion is an outcome on equal standing with the others. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Lugnuts cleanup can be put into an IAR rational with community consensus - we have to delete it rather than consider other options because the community agreed there were major problems with them. Masem (t) 00:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LUGSTUBS2 resulted in the articles being moved to draftspace. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation is listed as an alternative to deletion in the current policy and in the proposed addition to the policy. This addition would not prevent continued efforts to move Lugnuts stubs to draftspace through community consensus. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The Carlossuarez46 Iranian "village" stubs were bulk-deleted. If this change had been made then, we would have had to have looked at every single one of the 13,157 "village" articles that were deleted to see if there was a viable redirect for them. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors have raised concerns about the wording of the proposed addition. The first concern is that "viable" in "a viable alternative to deletion" is not strong enough wording to prevent unreasonable alternatives to deletion from being adopted. Cryptic's
  WP:NOTDICT could still be useful in a merge as Thryduulf noted.

  Would editors help come up with drafting a wording that addresses these concerns while keeping the general idea that deletion should be avoided when there are reasonable alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

"Even where a page is kept, there are various reasons why a sysop might need to delete one or more previous revisions".—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more guidance we can give admins? "various reasons" gives admins broad discretion to delete previous revisions and could lead to more disagreements at deletion review. Maybe the wording could discuss factors like whether the history contains sensitive information that should be hidden from the public or whether the history contains information that editors find useful. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Even where a page is kept, there are [[WP:CRD|various reasons]] why a sysop might need to delete one or more previous revisions".—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRD is a good policy to link. Thank you, S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• @
  WP:SIGCOV. Obviously merge and redirects are ATDs that can be utilized in those cases when appropriate, but keeping the article because of a “future editing” argument is not an ATD that should be invoked in cases where sources have not been identified. Otherwise anybody can claim sources exist, not produce them, and have an article kept based on no evidence. 4meter4 (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion when an alternative to deletion like a redirect or merge is not viable." Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would support that. One more side issue . Ever since we added ATD I am seeing more and more merge proposals brought to AFD without properly made deletion arguments. For example, right now we have

WP:WRONGFORUM. I also think we need to tell people to take all redirect proposals to MERGEPROP; even if there is no desire to merge content by the nominator (there could be by someone else). We really only need to take cases to AFD that involve deleting articles outright in the initial proposal. 4meter4 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge and redirect discussions on talk pages are more difficult to get consensus than AfD. Instead, we should centralize all contested merges, redirects, and deletions to the same venue. I don't support the proposal though because alternatives to deletion (even "reasonable" ones) are not necessarily superior to deletion. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGEPROP; at least not yet.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A couple of months ago there was a discussion I was involved in (and unfortunately I can't immediately find it) where it was suggested that the way forwards is a new central venue, with formal closes, for merges and splits that avoids them languishing for months or longer on poorly watched talk pages. This venue could be a discussion venue on the model of XfD or a listing venue on the model of RM, but I think it would avoid most of the issues 4meter4 brings up above. It would also avoid adding more workload to AfD (which is a common argument made against making it Articles for Discussion rather than Deletion). I think BilledMammal was also involved in that discussion so maybe they can remember more. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that discussion, but I can't remember where it took place. I think my suggestion was for merges and splits to be included at

WP:RM, but a new venue could also work. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• that alternative is preferable to deletion. Is it though? This seems like something that should be discussed on a case by case basis (i.e. AFD) rather than something that should be prescribed by policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. is longstanding, existing policy. Is there any ATD mentioned in this policy which does not fall under "editing" as used within the scope of this policy page? I note that "can" doesn't require that such improvement actually be done, nor does "should" preclude exceptions. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're the one hellbent on neutering "if editing can improve the page". You don't get to say language is longstanding policy is a reason to remove it. —

  Cryptic 03:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have no idea what you mean by that. I consider a redirection or a merger to be an improvement in cases where the policy-based alternative (note: Precludes TNT, which is a widely misused essay that actually says some sensible things and is a perfectly good essay absent its over/mis-use) is deletion. Including mergers and redirections under the heading of "editing" cuts both ways. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are some invisible words here, which are a Bad Thing in policy documents. Obviously the statement means "if editing can improve the page to a standard where it merits keeping..." but it doesn't say that. Certes (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. Our present standard does not deprecate deletion relative to redirecting/merging since these are also not editing the page so it can be kept, since redirection/merging are also not keeping the article. It does say that editing the article so that it can be kept is preferable, but that's it. FOARP (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those words aren't there, and I disagree that they were ever implied. Obviously, if you're going to insert words that aren't there into your understanding of policy, you're going to have disagreements with those who never understood them to be there. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Essentially agree with Mangoe, BilledMammal - deletion is a perfectly good outcome for an AFD discussion, and should not be deprecated relative to redirection/merging/etc.. Saying otherwise simply forces any redirect regardless of whether the target makes sense, and any merger regardless of whether there is any actual content to merge. A stand out example of this mindset can be seen at Close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim, a non-notable Austrian football player who was *not called Harry Oppenheim* (he seems to have gone as Heinrich, just called Harry on one database), yet we redirected "Harry Oppenheim" to a list of players on which this name does not appear, despite the existence of other "Harry" Oppenheims who were equally non-notable. Rather than encouraging such pointless redirection/merging, which merely serves to hinder clean-up of mass-created articles such as the LUGSTUBS, Carlossuarez46, and Antartica article-sets, we should instead discourage redirection/merging where it is merely being done as an alternative to deletion and not because it makes any actual sense. FOARP (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're noting a perfectly good case where redirection wasn't an appropriate outcome. I could list dozens--hundreds, over time--where deletion was used when there was a perfectly good redirect target. Can we agree that all articles that should be redirected rather than deleted should be redirected, and all articles that should be deleted rather than redirected should be deleted? Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this would be a drastic change in policy. The lead should be a summary; this is in no way a summary of current policy or practice. It's also vaguely worded, and to the extent that I can parse a meaning from it that meaning is awful and would represent an extremely undesirable change in policy and practice - what does "viable" mean? We can always theoretically rewrite or redirect an article; whether we do so or delete should depend on what the best option is (eg. how valuable would a redirect be?) Saying that we have to choose another option if it is "viable" for some vague handwavy notion of viability amounts to saying that we should redirect even if every editor agrees it would be a worse option, as long as someone asserts it is a "viable" one, which is total nonsense. More importantly, nobody has identified what problem this is trying to solve. As others have pointed out, the main problem we are facing is a flood of automatically or semi-automatically generated articles, which this would be moving in exactly the wrong direction on. I don't think there's anything productive being suggested here; I strenuously oppose the proposed change or any attempt to craft an alternative. --Aquillion (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]