Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
defunct
.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles

Prefatory material on alternatives

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]
@Aquillion: Did you mean this to come off as a condescending, out-of-nowhere accusation that I don't understand core policies, or...? – Joe (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just mean that it's important to be careful when bringing it up because people see things like this and it fuels the misuse of an already often-misapplied policy. It's narrow and cautiously-worded; I can understand why you'd cite it, but doing so in this particular context (where we're discussing something vastly more sweeping and aggressive) ultimately feeds into the "PRESERVE means you can't delete what I added without satisfying me first" misinterpretation of it, even if that wasn't your intent. Obviously a policy that says to try to fix problems and to consider alternatives is not the same as a sweeping proposal for a policy change that would mandate taking an option other than deletion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:08, 11 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]
How does a redirect happen? An editor clicks the edit button and replaces a page with a #REDIRECT directive. The idea that 'editing' excludes redirection or merging is novel and unsupported by the plain meaning of the word's usage within the Wikimedia interface. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion
 I am starting an
copyright violations, vandalism, and hoax material.

Is this wording clear enough? Should anything be added or changed? After receiving feedback, I plan to start an RfC to add this wording to the policy.

There have been numerous previous discussions about Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This includes Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 28#Paul Heitz, where I shared my thoughts about this policy. This includes Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 15#Rosebud Primary School, where Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) wrote, "policy needs to give clearer guidance on this issue so we don't keep having to relitigate it at DRV every six months. I don't think we've had an RfC on weighting ATD arguments since 2011: it's absolutely time for another one". The last RfC I found discussing this was in 2015.

Cunard (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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:
  • 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
]
@
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
    ]
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
]

Revising "If editing can improve the page"

WP:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion (permalink) reads: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. As pointed out by Certes (diff) and Aquillion (diff) above, this statement has unwritten qualifications. Cunard's original proposal lists a few exceptions, acknowledging this. Masem suggested adding a catch-all to cover any "other reasons why we delete".

I believe it is redundant to specify exceptions when they are already enumerated as WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, one section up. I propose a change like this: If editing can address all reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.

To be clear, I am gauging interest before drafting an RfC. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. It ties "improvement" to deletability. I'm mulling over whether "all" might be better as "any applicable" or "all relevant," but that's a solid proposal. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding "applicable", "relevant", or a similar adjective to my original proposal as a second choice behind Cryptic's wording. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wording I'd been mulling proposing was "If editing can fully address the reasons for deletion, ...". In particular, I don't know that it's helpful to link further up the page to #Reasons for deletion, since it itself says it's not exhaustive. —
Cryptic 06:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
My question then would be, what's the "reason for deletion"? It makes it sound like there's already a nomination and a specific problem identified, but ideally ATD should be applied before the deletion process has started. FWIW, I've always read this section as being a lot more basic than all that. Experienced editors take it for granted that we don't delete pages that, for example, are in need of copyediting, but this isn't actually self-evident to users unfamiliar with the wiki model – who maybe expect pages to be hidden in some backstage area until they're 'finished'. That's why the section goes on to explain things that are also obvious to all of us (disputes are settled by discussion, disagreeing with a policy isn't a reason to delete it). It's not trying to outline specific circumstances in which editing can overcome the del reasons (because these are all deliberately worded so as to be not addressable by editing), it's warning newbies that deletion is never our first resort. – Joe (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is whatever the person contemplating deletion is contemplating deletion for, and got them to come and look at
Cryptic 07:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Cryptic's wording is my first choice, albeit with the link. It adds context, especially for a reader linked to ATD who may not know to scroll up. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind to lean away from "the" due to Joe Roe's comment. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most people view draftification as separate from deletion and therefore not covered by that sentence. Beyond that, I would say that the gap between If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page and TNT is perhaps bridged by the idea that the level of editing required to avert a valid TNT situation goes beyond what can reasonably just be called "editing" in the colloquial sense and requires completely replacing the entire page, ie. TNT is a situation that can't be resolved by actual editing because it doesn't treat "first step, erase all the existing text" as editing even if it's an edit in the technical sense. I suppose if it's a serious problem it could say something like reasonable editing or editing (as opposed to complete replacement) or if editing can use an existing article as a basis for a version that... or the like; and even without that I think it's plain that the sentence imagines a scenario where it is possible to repair the article by editing what is already there rather than replacing it wholesale. (It might also be useful to add another sentence somewhere noting that the situation where "unreasonable" editing would be needed to avert deletion is somewhat different than other types of deletion in that it should at most result in draftification or deletion without prejudice towards the creation of a new article.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of you are underestimating the type of editors that argue policy at AFD discussions and the sorts of arguments they will successfully make with the above language. The opening statement as written will place a hierarchy in decision making which will become an impediment to draftifying articles as an outcome at AFD. I've seen enough parsing of policy language in discussions to know that this will happen and will be effective. We need to outright state what the options are and not place an emphasis on a particular option such as future editing in main space. As written, this is not a policy language I would support. We need to clarify specifically what types of actions can be done and avoid prescriptive overarching statements that could be parsed to prevent other types of reasonable and useful options.4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think the current wording that only says "if editing can improve the page" is better? It seems to be a clearly lower bar to me. —
Cryptic 17:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirection/Merging/etc. are not "editing and discussion". FOARP (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they are. I've said so multiple times above, and have yet to see a convincing rebuttal. Editing is anything that doesn't require the admin tools. To make a redirect, including a merge, you click on the 'edit' button and change the page. That's editing. Jclemens (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Editing is anything that doesn't require the admin tools." - When was the last time you saw someone with no tools at all draftify something?
More essentially, every ATD but "editing and discussion" involves deleting the article so that there is no longer an article with that name on Wikipedia from the perspective of the average reader. This is reason enough by itself to distinguish between "editing and discussion" and the other ATDs. Indeed, I'd question why anyone would want to put "editing and discussion" at the same level of preferability as redirection, since for "editing and discussion", if viable, we still have an article, whereas with redirection the article is essentially no more. In the original guide redirection and transwikiing were listed as was of dealing with "problems that may require deletion" so it's simply not true that these have always just been considered versions of editing. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oookay. Some large part of disagreement here is that you're using the same words I am, but we're meaning very, very different things by them. We've both been on-Wiki for well over 15 years, so it's puzzling to me that this is the case... but it is. As far as draftifying needing tools, it LOOKS like it works for me with the full non-admin toolset, but I'm not going to try to move something out of mainspace to test. I understand that a non-admin moving a page from mainspace to draft would need to tag the redirects as G2 rather than deleting them directly, but I still 1) wouldn't really call that an admin action and 2) note that the existing policy wording predates the implementation of draftspace. So basically... it's still editing.
As far as deletion goes, absolutely not. Redirection or merging allow non-admins to see the page history, even if they have to work at it and know what they're doing. The page may not exist any longer, but the content is just one edit away from coming back. Admins can delete/undelete/revdel things, not the editor corps at large. To cast a 'delete' vote in AfD means "I want only admins to be able to see this content when this is concluded" and that is why I find straight deletion as an often unnecessarily hostile outcome. We absolutely want to delete every bit of G10-11-12 content: burn it with fire. But most non-notable content doesn't rise to that level of harmfulness. Someone did a big list article that we don't need, but it might work somewhere else? Great, let them fetch it from the page history and reuse it elsewhere.
As far as order of preference goes, I don't know that I've asserted order among the non-delete options, but now that you mention it, yes, I agree: editing the text should be preferable to merging or redirection. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) I tend to agree that flat "do this" statements should generally be avoided in policy unless it is absolutely necessary (ie. for core policies, or for vital stuff like
    WP:BLP) - whether we delete borderline pages is definitely not one of the situations where we need that. But, as Cryptic says, the current version of the text is already being interpreted that way, so the proposed edit (which merely adds a qualifier to avoid absurd situations where editing could rearrange the deck chairs, so to speak, without being able to address a core reason for deletion) would still be an improvement, even if it doesn't solve everything. If you think we also need a qualifier to point to in situations where someone argues against deletion or even draftification because they could theoretically blank the page and then write something totally different in its place (without being willing to actually do it, because if they actually did it then the deletion discussion would be moot)... then try and think of some other wording to avoid that problem. I made a few vague suggestions in that direction. --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think a simple addition “If editing in either main space or draft space can improve the page…” would solve the issue. We can then add a sentence about making the decision to edit in main space versus draft space.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stubifying has advantages over draftifying, in that incoming redirects stay intact and incoming links, including dab page entries, stay blue. If an article is moved to draftspace, all the effort editors may have put into creating redirects is wasted, links from other articles will quite probably be unlinked by editors who dislike seeing red links, and any dab page entry will be deleted as invalid, just as with deletion. Stubifying, if the article has a couple of RS enough to show notability, can be a much more useful outcome: remove the unsourced / promotional / POV/ incomprehensible etc stuff and leave the reader with something better than nothing. PamD 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Draftifying is backdoor delayed deletion in that it removes an article from the encyclopedia's radar and sets a timer for automatic deletion. It's an option, but nowhere near as preferred as stubbifying, redirecting, or merging. Jclemens (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that moving to draft with essentially automated G13 is just delayed deletion unless an editor agrees to improve it, in which case why not userify? Stubbing is definitely a preferable option in most cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cryptic and Aquillion that we should move forward with the change as proposed and consider 4meter4's concerns in another iteration. Aquillion wrote a few good ideas for TNT; an alternative is adapting from if practical in WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion (permalink). Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the proposal to add "relevant" as suggested by Jclemens: If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. If I made this edit, would anyone object and/or revert? Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly oppose any edit of the guidelines that deprecates deletion relative to the other ways of resolving article problems that are not "Editing and discussion". FOARP (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're arguing for a policy change, because deletion is already deprecated by the current wording, no matter how much several editors don't like that it is. Jclemens (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"deletion is already deprecated by the current wording" - relative to "Editing and discussion", yes, but not to the other ATDs. If it meant to say otherwise, it would say otherwise. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, would you clarify the connection between your comment and the proposal? I am not following how the edit – confined to one clause in the Editing and discussion subsection – does what you're concerned about. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is where it is going to be done then I have no objections. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change after seeing no new objections in two weeks. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use alternatives to deletion wording from AfD editnotice as inspiration

moved to draftspace for incubation, then consider recommending "Disambiguate", "Redirect", "Merge", or "Draftify" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why.

I recommend using this wording as inspiration for drafting an introduction for Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The wording reminds AfD participants to consider alternatives to deletion. It does not take a position on whether deletion or alternatives to deletion should be preferred. What do editors think? Cunard (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't a bad start. I do think the presumption should be in favour of an ATD unless those opposing it have adequately explained why they believe deletion is preferable to that alternative. "Adequately" is the tricky word here, but if the argument doesn't convince anyone else or doesn't make sense according to policy/precedent or it's just an "I don't like it" then it obviously isn't adequate, conversely something like "redirection isn't suitable here because several similar redirects have been deleted at RfD" or an argument that convinces multiple people who were in favour of the alternative then it obviously is adequate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting, for the record, that the sort of case that makes me see red isn't where a suggested ATD hasn't been opposed; it's where there hasn't been a chance to oppose - such as being suggested shortly before an AFD is closed, or not having been mentioned before the AFD closer took it upon themself to do it without anyone at the AFD mentioning it. If you see an AFD that reads delete (with normally-acceptable reasoning), delete (ditto), delete (ditto again), delete (yet again), and a bare "redirect to [[some other article]]", it's unacceptable to halt the discussion there and say there's consensus to redirect. Even if you know that DRV hardly ever overturns anything to delete no matter the provocation. —
Cryptic 00:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Certainly if we require those opposing an ATD to adequately explain why they oppose it they must be given the opportunity to do so. A last minute ATD !vote should lead to relisting, but several deletes and an ATD in the first couple of day or so followed by multiple days of silence can be closed in favour of the ATD (note not must be so closed). Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf - This is why "any ATD is better than deletion regardless of how tenuous the case for it is or how clear the consensus in favour of deletion is" is just a massive spanner in the works at AFD. It means repeated relists as we struggle to agree on a redirect/merge that essentially Does. Not. Matter. because we're already in agreement that the article has to go. It often results in the third most supported option at AFD being the one that passes, simply because it's not deletion per se even if it has practically the same effect.
"Merge" closures for articles that have no actual sourced content that is worth mentioning at the merge-target are something that needs to die. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 km, Sakhalin Oblast was a particularly bad example of this - 7 delete !votes and 4 keep !votes, then 4 merge !votes (after re-lists made it obvious that the closers weren't going to close as delete) for a merge that ultimately no-one carried out because there was no mergeable content, to a merge-target that made no sense at all given that it is a much larger city of hundreds of thousands of people and we were talking about a place that was essentially a single house with two people in it. Because of the repeated relists this process took weeks of time when the consensus that the article had to go was already very clear no later than by the end of the first relist, and it was only the idea that we had to find a merge/redirect rather than simply delete that made this happen.
Editor time is a valuable resource. Don't waste it with this kind of snipe hunt. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say massive spanner in the works like it's a bad thing. We can't delete sucky articles to achieve a good product--we have to create a collaborative environment that entices people to fix the sucky articles. Just the other day we had a valued contributor complain [1] that their improvement work was lost with a redirection during AfD. That's the sort of work we don't want to stomp on while fixing sucky articles, because if those folks inclined to fix them leave, then we are well and truly screwed. Jclemens (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple people are supporting an ATD then deletion is not the correct outcome, even if you personally would prefer deletion. Merges not being done is a problem, but not one that is particularly relevant to this discussion (as it's much broader). If there is no mergeable content (and in my experience that's claimed far more often than it is true) then a redirect is appropriate as it maintains the link people desire. I also agree with Jclemens. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf - "If multiple people are supporting an ATD then deletion is not the correct outcome" - Forgive me for possibly being too literal here, but simply because a number of votes for merge/redirect have been cast in a discussion that is two or greater, is not a reason why deletion is not a perfectly good outcome for that discussion. Two or more people can totally be wrong about something, simply having a couple of drive-by merge/redirect !votes in an AFD is not a reason not to just close it as delete if there's already a consensus in favour of that.
Merges not being done is a problem because it means that merges are being !voted for that can't/won't be done because either there's no actual sourced content, or the merge target is basically wrong. It renders the whole process of arguing out the merge at AFD a completely wasted effort.
AFD is already clogged and already understaffed, why make things even worse? Just delete where there is already a consensus to delete, and in the limited number of cases where there was mergeable content, if the information truly is relevant to the page that it could be added to, someone will add it there eventually.
@Jclemens - "We can't delete sucky articles to achieve a good product". Strong disagree here. We absolutely totally can straight delete articles and achieve a better product by doing so, when those articles detract from the quality of the product. Redirection is, anyway, effectively deletion from a reader's POV since the article is no longer there, it just takes us much longer to arrive at and do. FOARP (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection is not deletion from a reader's point of view. A redirect takes people to content relevant to the search term they used but deletion gives them nothing. Search results (which may be multiple clicks or taps away, depending on the combination of the method they were using to find the content, what device they are using, whether they have the permission to create a page at the given title, etc) might or might not be relevant, or even available at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A redirect takes people to content relevant to the search term they used" - Does it always? Or does it sometimes land people on pages where the topic is not mentioned at all because "Redirect/merge per
WP:PRESERVE" is apparently a more valid !vote at AFD that any amount of explanation as to why the article should be deleted? FOARP (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This is better as it does not deprecate deletion relative to redirection/merging etc. FOARP (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is talking about talking about articles. Policy still favors ATD over deletion, even if the instructions to participants don't call out that explicitly. Jclemens (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy still favors ATD over deletion, even if the instructions to participants don't call out that explicitly." - The thing about policies that ain't written anywhere is, they ain't policies. It may be that some closers favour all ATDs over deletion, but that's on them. The guideline we have right now only does this for "Editing and discussion". FOARP (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective, but the first section is the general guidance for the entire ATD process. the next several sections of ATD are clearly editing actions: Tag something? Gotta edit it to add a tag. Merging and redirection? Same thing.
WP:DGFA, specifically the When in doubt, don't delete directive? Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That's about assessing the consensus, with no-consensus outcomes resulting in the article being kept, not about all ATDs being superior outcomes to deletion. Realistically, the same "when in doubt, don't" also applies to redirection, merging etc. - if you doubt whether there's a consensus in favour of these, then default to keep. Interpreting it otherwise means assuming that in a doubtful situation between keeping and another ATD, we can draftify/redirect etc., but closers don't do this.
"the first section is the general guidance for the entire ATD process" - it says "Editing and discussion" right there above it. It's very clear what it's talking about. It only discusses two cases in that section ("Editing and discussion" and "deletion"). If it was intended as a general statement about all ATDs it would include the other ATDs, but it doesn't.
More basically, keeping should always be favoured as an outcome to all of the other ATDs and deletion where it is viable and it makes sense to interpret it this way. Draftification/trans-wikiing mean we no longer have the information on that page in main space. Redirection means we no longer have the information on that page unless it happens to exist on the target page (and it may well not). Merging means we no longer have an article with that title that is easily discoverable. All of the ATDs other than "Editing and discussion" result in us no longer having an actual encyclopaedia article with that title. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I think that, despite serious disagreements remaining, we're converging on a consensus that, when appropriate and in line with our content policies, editing the content of the page is better than merging or redirecting, which are in turn better than transwiki'ing or draftifying, which are in turn better than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily rank them that way, I'd say that keeping where viable is better than deleting, but the others really depend on the context of the article. I wouldn't say redirection is really that different to deletion in 90%+ of the cases discussed at AFD in terms of outcomes for the reader, except that redirection takes far more time to achieve. Draftification also is very often exactly the same as deletion - I've been open about supporting it in the LUGSTUBS case for exactly that reason. Merging, in the way it is so often !voted for simply as something that is "not-deletion", is little different to deletion. Transwikiing is something I've almost never seen actually happen, but when it's voted for it's always just as a way of getting rid of the articles.
WP:PRESERVE abjures us to preserve what we can preserve, but there's different ways of doing that and they needn't go into a hierarchy. FOARP (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"
Wikipedia:HUFF" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:HUFF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Wikipedia:HUFF until a consensus is reached.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Huff policy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Huff policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Wikipedia:Huff policy until a consensus is reached.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Storage of deleted articles

Currently, the section Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Access to deleted pages includes a sentence stating that deleted articles remain in the database (at least temporarily) - my emphasis. WikiBlame tells me that this was inserted in 2008 with Special:Diff/241376527.

The qualifier at least temporarily can be read to imply that deleted articles will be permanently erased after a retention period, which is contrary to my understanding that deleted pages/revisions are kept in the database indefinitely. I’m therefore proposing to remove that qualifier (my reason for starting this discussion rather than making the edit boldly is because I wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct/that there wouldn’t be any other problems with making this edit).

All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the WMF do not guarantee that deleted revisions will remain available in perpetuity. The likelihood of deleted revisions ever being permanently deleted is massively lower in 2023 than it was in 2008, but at least theoretically still possible. The original version of Oversight (pre 2009) also permanently deleted the relevant revisions, although it's unlikely that was what was being referred to. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it would be an extraordinary event, maybe we should still remove that part. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It's still accurate, and I see no reason to increase the level of expected retention. We know it's probably sticking around... but do we want to promise that? Don't think that's our place as a community: we don't own the infrastructure. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just replace it with footnote [c] from Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to copy that footnote here and add it to the end of the text quoted above, giving it context, rather than replace it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly also it might be worth speaking to the devs to confirm that statement is still accurate nearly 17 years later. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve emailed answers@wikimedia.org with the query and a link to this discussion, so hopefully someone from the WMF will be able to provide the latest information. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. --

brion
00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) 19 January 2007
Emphasis and ALLCAPS as per the original.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what we are discussing directly above. A smart kitten has emailed to see if this 17-year-old statement is still accurate. It would seem foolish to do anything before we get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a reference to edit histories being quite unreliable in the very early days of the encyclopedia (I believe before around 2003) see WP:UuU. It may be technically correct but unnecessary in practice. --Trialpears (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember there was a policy decision to never flush deleted revisions due to the CC-by-SA attribution requirement. But that could just be leaky neurons conflating different discussions. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You find all sorts of weird crap if you look through the primordial database. For example,
WP:VPT#* in comment table? that I found yesterday. What's really weird is that revision_ids aren't (weren't?) assigned in monotonically increasing order. Step through the earliest history of the WP:UuU
in chronological order. The revision ids go:
  • 291430
  • 385544927
  • 302608
  • 13692247
  • 15927838
My brain hurts. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, turns out this is documented

Note that while rev_id almost always increases monotonically for successive revisions of a page, this is not strictly guaranteed as importing from another wiki can cause revisions to be created out of order.

RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what happened. —
Cryptic 01:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've had an email response from the WMF as follows:

I've heard back from Legal, who noted that they do not see a need to change the wording in that section of the deletion policy at the moment.

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also phab:T343933 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Other issues" section

The first image in "Other issues" section has wrong caption. This type of page is also seen by normal users. Sarangem (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, non-admins will not see the "view X deleted revisions" link. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Want

We shouldn't be so eager to delete stuff, it makes people not want to edit Wikipedia. I've heard this from so many of my friends, too. Benjamin (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion? Primefac (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations. HouseBlastertalk 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about if the page title is extremely long?

What about if the page title is extremely long? Abhiramakella (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete a page. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd ask a
WP:VPT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It can be reason to delete a redirect. See, for example,
Cryptic 08:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
However, some very long titles can make good redirects, for example
Adelgundes de Jesus Maria Francisca de Assis e de Paula Adelaide Eulália Leopoldina Carlota Micaela Rafaela Gabriela Gonzaga Inês Isabel Avelina Ana Estanislau Sofia Bernardina. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The
Cryptic 18:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Edit request

In the "Speedy deletion" section, please add the work ....so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia such that they have no....

Reason
Some people may be confused of the statement, including myself.

102.40.79.94 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: adding "such" there would be grammatically incorrect and confusing, the current "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion." is fine Cannolis (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking blocked users at AfD?

Isn't it customary to strike blocked users, such as sockpuppets, within AfD discussions? I understand that the AfD discussion can continue even if they are the nominator, but we generally strike their comments regardless. @Beccaynr @Another Believer Cielquiparle (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: I feel like I see comments by blocked editors crossed out often, but maybe that's something I should leave to admins. I didn't mean to overstep, and I gave permission for Beccaynr to remove the strike. Makes no difference to me. I also asked at User_talk:MER-C#AfD_comment, since I saw MER-C comment on the block in other AfD discussions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to what appears to be the
Talk page guidelines, that I linked to in that discussion, Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. Previously, when I have attempted to clean up after sock-related !votes, I recall having strikes unstruck because I did not follow this precisely. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Beccaynr That's what AB did – strike the comment instead of removing it, with a short explanation following. Can you please restore the strike? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that I can find that the comment was made by [a] blocked [sock puppet] of [a] [user] editing in violation of a block or ban. Perhaps MER-C can offer some guidance here; based on my past experience with having strikes unstruck when I thought the TPO provision applied to editors socking generally (and there being no indication socking is involved here), I would prefer to rely on my understanding of the guideline and experience, and wait for additional guidance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's customary to strike people who are using more than one account in the discussion, so they don't get counted twice, and users who are sockpuppets of blocked/banned users, since they are not allowed to edit. A common mistake in this context is to strike users who are subsequently blocked for a reason other than having a prior account. It is a common mistake, but it's still a mistake. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification @Zzuuzz. Perhaps it's enough then to just add a comment after their comment making it clear that they were subsequently blocked? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is also customary, perhaps (optionally) explaining why they were blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on this case - I think this user is a UPE spammer, that's why I blocked them. The problem I described here still exists and probably has become worse. I don't particularly mind whether their comments are struck, but UPE spamming elsewhere does have a negative impact on whether the vote/comment is in good faith. UPE spammers are more likely to be socks too. MER-C 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If thje user's blocked as a LTA or a sock or a UPE then yes; if they're just a normal user who got blocked for a totally unrelated thing I would say no. jp×g🗯️ 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sockpuppet has started an AfD and there are no other delete comments it can be speedily closed as per WP:Speedy keep Applicability criteria 4, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy&oldid=1222868114"