Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

I noticed a minor discrepancy, and I'm thinking that either this policy needs rewording, or the process documentation at WP:AFD is incorrect. If this has been brought up before, just point me to the prior conversation.

This policy states "The discussion lasts at least five days ..."; but WP:AFD states "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days ..." (emphasis in both were added by me). I'm not a big fan of inconsistencies, which is why I ask. I suspect that WP:AFD is written based on existing practice; which suggests the policy needs to be amended to match the actual process that's in place - or am I missing something? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you are missing anything, that's a clever catch. I would say that the policy should say "about five days" on both but there are those who feel that early (~12-24 hours) closes of AfDs is bad practice and that bad practice shouldn't be codified. At least the "up to" should be changed given that many discussions are relisted following the five day period. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets be straight here, this policy should be changed to "The discussion lasts as long as the closing Admin feels like leaving it open." If a policy is not being followed it should be changed to what is actually happen and I see no evidence that deletion discussions are being left open for a minimum of five days. It makes Wikipedia look bad when an outsider sees a clear policy of at least 5 days, then their favorite article is deleted in fewer than that. Lets just straight up tell the truth or actually hold to the 5 day policy. Not pretend like we do and then bend it to whatever we want whenever we want. --Theblog (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading over the article on Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America and the related article on Media_coverage_of_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict. Both these articles discuss alleged attempts by an organization to influence the content of the Wikipedia.

It seems to me that articles of this type are not suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia, because they perforce involve a conflict of interest and a violation of the NPOV policy. Regardless of the personal opinions of the individual editors of these articles (which are, by the way, highly contentious), the final product is inevitably a statement of Wikipedia's stance in a conflict with another organization. Neutrality in this case is not an option. The subject might well be notable and encyclopedic in character; however, we must, I believe, leave the documentation of this topic to some other encyclopedia.

What do others think of this? --Ravpapa (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, as long as we're careful to be neutral. The views of editors don't represent the views of Wikipedia as an "organization". (I'm always impressed by how the BBC, for example, is capable of reporting on controversies involving itself in a quite unbiased manner.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is hugely influential in the outside world. Any attempts to manipulate Wikipedia can have the effect of manipulating the perception of certain issues in the world, and are thus notable.
• The operation of organizations created to manipulate public opinion, such as CAMERA, is inherently interesting, and the Wikipedia campaign was one such strategy that was employed and well-documented by reliable sources
• POV is not identical to conflict of interest: I actually doubt that many editors have any true conflict of interest at all
• Many editors of contentious articles admit to personal POV, but still attempt to edit Wikipedia fairly anyway. Many articles would be far poorer without motivated and interested editors. The ethos and rules of Wikipedia allows editors with different points of view to have civilized discussions and resolve issues fairly
• Editors are definitely not always POV in favour of Wikipedia: I myself have supported allegations by The Register against Wikipedia where they seem to have had a good point, although this does sometimes lead to some unpleasantness.
• Your argument is actually rather fatuous, because there are many other issues with strong POV which are very difficult to edit. However, I really don't think that Israel/Palestine or Naked Short Selling be made "NO GO" areas because of perceived POV of many editors
• Do you have any evidence of any other articles painting Wikipedia in an allegedly overly favourable light, other than those involving Israel? Or is Israel the only significant issue in this world in which such bias is manifest?
• Your attempt to cast doubt on the strength of the evidence against CAMERA by using the word "alleged" does you no favours, as the treatment of this material by reliable sources is such that there is no need to express any doubt in the WP article itself
• Do we need to keep going over the same tired old ground, time and time again, WP:WL ? cojoco (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that our greatest danger is in presuming that any conflict regarding Wikipedia is more important than it actually is, i.e. a tendency to WP:UNDUE.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• See this recent RS/N topic as well. The issue is very much WP:UNDUE and self referencing. As jimbo says above, we have an unlimited capacity to judge events on wikipedia as far more important than others would. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • True, but then we also get occasional cases where we go the other way - people are so set on avoiding the self-referencing trap that they sometimes go to excessive lengths to remove stuff just because it's about WP.--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • All things being equal, we are probably better off leaning towards limiting content that might be a self-reference. Though any 'nuance' would be a content question, not a 'deletion' question. Protonk (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources outside of Wikipedia are discussing an issue, should Wikipedia ignore it simply because Wikipedia is involved in the issue? An effort should be made to avoid placing too much emphasis on the issue, and all WP policies should apply to the information, but information shouldn't be ignored just because it is about Wikipedia. We should avoid using Wikipedia as a source of information, but we should treat information related to Wikipedia that is outside of Wikipedia just as we would as if it were about any other subject.--76.214.153.120 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree with Jimbo Wales that in general that there is a danger of WP:UNDUE when talking about WP (indeed, how could I not?), the CAMERA affair in particular is is a wonderful case study of revealing an attempt by a group to influence Wikipedia, there are many WP:RS which discuss the issue, and there is an extensive history of the discussion on WP itself. I don't know of any other cases like this. cojoco (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC) (Except User:Mantanmoreland and Naked Short Selling, of course!) cojoco (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I agree completely that WP editors can and do write neutrally and clearly about controversial issues. The article on CAMERA is, in fact, not bad at all. My point is that, regardless of what the editors (myself included) write and what their own positions may be, an article in the WP about a controversy involving the WP will necessarily be seen as a position statement on that controversy.

The example of BBC reporting on itself is instructive. When I was a newspaperman, many years ago, we assiduously avoided writing anything about controversies involving our own coverage. We always let someone else do that. Whenever the New York Times covers a controversy involving itself, no matter how objective, it is always picked up by some other paper with the sentence, "The Times responded that ... " --Ravpapa (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You can nominate any such articles for AfD, if you really want to, but I'm not sure how much headway you'll make. For CAMERA, at least, the likelyhood of having the article deleted is slim ("It'd take a miracle" -Miracle Max). Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As CAMERA says it organized an e-mail campaign against Wikipedia, wouldn't leaving this out of an article about CAMERA be seen as censoring their views? And why shouldn't Wikipedia summarize what multiple outside reliable sources are reporting?--76.214.153.120 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And the ombudsman of NPR, who now works at the Project for Excellence in Journalism, indeed did do investigations to examine CAMERA's charges which were carried by NPR. This isn't to say Wikipedia should be like NPR, but rather to say that it should be alright for Wikipedia to document a controversy according to its policies regardless of what the subject of the controversy is. If Wikipedia had been involved in the Holocaust and this were mentioned by reliable sources, then it should be included regardless of whether Wikipedia is the subject or not. Another words, we should ask what it would look like if instead of Wikipedia we substituted any other subject.--76.214.153.120 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, Wikipedia has already shown a distinct tendency to underplay and be skeptical of articles on people associated with it, or topics associated with it--to the extent that some of us have argued shows a distinct and improper non neutral POV against such material. as for objectively writing the article, its up to the editors, like for everything else here. WP, as such, does not write articles.DGG (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much, but not all, of what has been said above. But these examples are not ones for a deletion policy issue, this is an editing policy issue. A better venue would be Wikipedia talk:Self-references to avoid, given the "Writing about Wikipedia itself" and "Articles are about their subjects" sections of that guideline. Could this discussion move over to that talk page? GRBerry 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Section "Deletion review" (which is also the Wikipedia:Undeletion policy) mentions about an article being deleted for having "inappropriate content". It's not clear what comes under inappropriate. That sentence can be expanded and made more specific.

I also would like to know if it is possible that I agree with the deletion of a page, but I would like to undelete the page for the sole reason of restoring its page history, provided of course that I make it a worthy article following the restoration. Jay (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A user asked me to restore old deleted versions of Uni5 for research. This article was deleted after an AfD, because it was a crystal-ball article about a future album. It was written from scratch later, and appears to be properly sourced (i didn't check it too deeply.)

Now - is it OK per the current policy to restore the old crystal-ball versions? I couldn't find an answer in this policy. I think that it's reasonable, as they don't include anything illegal, but wanted to be sure. The policy should be updated to include such cases. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread to Stop the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users at WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days and comment! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How long is sufficiently long to allow for pages to be merged after a deletion debate that ended in a decision to merge? 1 week? 1, 3 or 6 months? The template {{Afd-mergeto}} suggests "promptly". Of course wikipedia has no deadlines, and "prompt" is a relative term, however I would have thought it was reasonable to expect some indication of activity after a month. Some guidance here would be helpful. Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question. Once the decision has been made it should be done ASAP. Surely the response if you notice it hasn't been done after a week is to do it yourself! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Proposal to make unreferenced BLPs speedy-deleteable. --Amalthea 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in discussions on WP:CSD regarding BLP articles which have been tagged - often for a significant length of time - as unreferenced but have not been cleaned up. There are currently over 11,000 such articles and I'd like to start a discussion on our deletion policy on these so we can move towards a solution.

This deletion policy states that:

Reasons for deletion include ... articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

The policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) states:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully ... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons

In isolation, you could interpret this to mean that unsourced BLP articles do not comply with BLP and therefore that, on its own, is grounds for deletion.

However, BLP then goes on to say:

If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion ... Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible

In addition, this deletion policy states:

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion

Given that the backlog of unsourced BLP is large and growing and the importance of applying WP:BLP, I'd like to suggest that the burdon of proof is reversed; any unsourced BLP tagged as such for, say, over a month, should be deleted if proposed at AFD, unless of course anyone has provided sources whilst the AFD is open. In cases like these, the nominator should not be expected to have investigated potential sources before nominating for deletion. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

how many places would you like to hold this discussion at? There are already several threads in different sections at the WT:CSD page; perhaps this should be taken to a subpage somewhere of its own, as it does affect much more than CSD.

My own view is that we should do what is necessary to persuade--not force--people to source articles, and concentrate on removing the actually problematic BLP violations, rather than the ones that are not. But what I am more fundamentally concerned with is the same as what you are, that we not have conflicting policies, and make a firm consensus based decision on how we want to deal with this. DGG (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Limited previous discussion:

• Wikipedia talk:User page/Archive 4#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive137#Talk pages for indef users
• Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#Stop the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users

Relevant "main" page for this process:

• Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

There seems to be a lack of broad consensus about how and when such user talk pages should be deleted. Additionally, there is a lack of guidance and support within policy for such deletions. We need to:

• Clearly establish what user talk pages should be deleted.
• Provide appropriate guidance and description in the most appropriate policy page.

I believe it is uncontroversial to delete talk pages for vandalism-only accounts. In circumstances where harassment or the talk page could be considered an attack page, I similarly believe that deletion is fairly uncontroversial. There are numerous concerns about the blanket deletion of such pages, including but not limited to, the obfuscation of the history of disruptive editors and the invalidity of some arguments. As an example of the latter, many people have claimed it "saves space", but the opposite is true, as the database retains the deleted information and actually increases in size with the deletions. It would behoove us to clarify the circumstances under which deletion is acceptable and preferable (both distinct issues), and which circumstances make deletion undesirable. Thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If the talk page contains previous messages, warnings, unblock requests etc that are perfectly civil, then I don't see why any of that should be deleted. If anything, if it ever came to reviewing blocks/blocking process etc I feel it is quite important that archived discussion remain for all to see. When such pages are vandalised, contain personal attacks etc, simply revert and lock as far as I'm concerned, no real need to delete (unless that's somehow easier). The point I'm trying to make is there could be reasons for wanting to retain the content of a talk page, and since it does no real harm to do so, why bother deleting? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we (the community) should clarify this. Now it is a matter of showing arguments for and against each circumstance, and then coming to a community consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely doesn't mean forever. An editor sometimes gets blocked indefinitely and then gets unblocked after discussion. Many bots are getting blocked "indefinitely" until an issue is solved. Do we have some cases that talk pages of register users have to be deleted? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just make it part of the process to check for a deleted talk page when reviewing an unblock request. It take 3 seconds, and the only people who can undo a block can also see the deleted talk page. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would almost say .. noo .. not again. I am sorry, but there are huge problems with this which are difficult to define, but which when, not strictly followed, result in the deletion of important information. This discussion is similar to a discussion on IP talk pages, see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_33#U4 (and other discussions linked from there)

While it is true, most of these pages can safely be deleted, pages of users who are in some way involved in spamming, POV pushing or other types of 'coordinated' or long term problems, then the page should not be deleted (as for those cases, these contain important information regarding the type of abuse).

The problem lies partially in questions like 'how do I know if a user was a spammer' or 'how do I know if a user was a POV pusher, that question can only really be answered by following every single edit of the account (users sometimes get warned for vandalism, while the actual process warned for was spam). It is for people following such old tracks left by certain editors very difficult to follow that if the talkpages are deleted (you have to check for every involved IP with edit who actually has deleted revids, and then see what action they were warned for, something which then needs admin intervention in the process; I'll repeat an example - try to find the warnings: User talk:213.59.221.158, User talk:213.59.221.236, User talk:213.59.221.30, User talk:213.59.221.36, User talk:213.59.221.11, User talk:213.59.221.58, User talk:213.59.221.89, User talk:213.59.221.179, User talk:213.59.221.19, User talk:213.59.221.157, User talk:213.59.221.175, User talk:213.59.221.181, User talk:213.59.221.57, User talk:213.59.221.69, User talk:213.59.221.233; I know, finding which editors were involved locally is easy, the others were active on other wikis).

Other part of the problem is that certain editors do first engage in good discussions, which may even result in policy changes of which parts are also discussed on the talkpages of the user, which after deletion are lost to non-admin readers.

I still don't see a real gain in deleting these pages as opposed to something like 'replacing them with a template noting the user is indef blocked, and linking to the previous revid of the page'. Choosing that solution leaves all tracks, which sometimes are necessery. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see a huge gain for deleting the pages ("removing a trophy" isn't convincing to me). If we feel a need to not see the spate of warnings (and 90% of the time this isn't helpful, either), just blank the page and replace it with the indef template. Then editors who need to see the history can easily do so.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally have never seen the logic behind deleting ANY user talk pages (indef-blocked or not) for reasons other than CSD#U2 (user doesn't exist), or if it's been used purely as an attack page or is otherwise eligible under the general criteria. I've never understood the arguments for these being deleted under G6. I consider it essentially just a waste of admin time.--Aervanath (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave plenty of reasons, statistics, and analysis here (and in the other parts of that discussion), feel free to ignore it like everyone else did. Also, since I no longer run the bot that clears out pages that shouldn't be deleted from the category, there's probably a lot more incorrect deletions than there used to be. Mr.Z-man 16:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The statistics are quite useful, helping to define the common practice. I certainly hope that people will take note of them. --Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't ignore the stats you so helpfully provided, they just didn't change my opinion in any way.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone back and reviewed the statistics and analysis in the discussion Mr.Z-man linked to, and I still don't actually see any reasons for deleting these. The statistics given are about reducing the number of false positives in the relevant category. The only reason I saw there that made any sense for deleting any of these pages was that some were spam-related, and those are already covered under the speedy guidelines. I would like to gather a consensus for stopping this practice altogether.--Aervanath (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the practice. The pages serve no purpose towards creating an encyclopedia and it gives any troll a trophy page after being blocked. I say deny them this trophy and delete these pages which serve no purpose towards our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Chillum 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have evidence of trolls actually using them as trophies?--Aervanath (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not as such. The pages which give trolls the trophies are those we specifically do not delete - all the sockpuppet pages. There are occasions when it is useful to speedy delete troll pages as part of our anti-vandalism strategies, but a lot of the time it's not helpful. There is no harm whatsoever in deleting the pages of the simplest vandalism-only accounts, typically with four warnings and a block notice, but the problems come when people use the {{indef}} or {{uw-block3}} templates on users with some history in their pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some, although there has been no detailed analysis. Wikipedia:Deny recognition cites 'Pelican shit' and a vandal's request for his own trophy page as examples. In 2007 'Willy on Wheels' vandalism virtually disappeared after denying recognition led to a 95% drop in mentions. A more current crosswiki vandal seemed quite upset when NawlinWiki made several months worth of his vandalism disappear. That same vandal maintained a brag sheet at Encyclopedia Dramatica<http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Grawp> (until they got tired of him), frequently checks the logs and responds to block reasons, objects to hiding accounts, and overall obviously enjoys every bit of attention.

Trolling and abusive behaviour to obtain attention and glorification has been widely documented both within and outside Wikimedia. Categorizing, documenting, and archiving pages by and about vandals when they do not contain useful information only encourages such vandalism, and I don't think that saving one click to check for deleted edits is sufficient reason to ignore this. This is particularly true for blatant vandals who should never be unblocked, and accounts with abusive user names.

User pages for sock puppets and banned users are never deleted, since they are arguably useful, but most others serve no useful purpose (pages that do contain useful information can be tagged as historical and kept indefinitely, as described in the template documentation). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pathoschild, Mr.Z-man and others who see benefit in deletion: I do agree, there are many cases where these pages can simply be deleted. However, there are just as many cases where the pages still serve a purpose. I am NOT against the deletion, I am not in favour of 'keeping treasures', but automated deletion has shown to be deleting pages which are useful. It is bloody difficult to get the full data, but I am afraid that 5-10% of automated user talk page deletions were linked to cases where there were 'hidden tracks': my (way?) too sensitive investigation came to 16.21% (6034 of 37215 investigated deleted IP-talkpages) at a certain point (which included parsing of the edits of the editors and checking if they added links which are now on blacklists here or meta, or if domains had been mentioned on e.g. WT:WPSPAM, users have been mentioned (as opposed from 'linked to') on some of the 'problem noticeboards' (e.g. using a Special:Contributions-link or 'external' link in stead of a direct wikilink to user or user-talk page; this still misses the plain username mentioning!), having some edits to talkpages outside of user_talk namespace, having a significant number of edits to talkpages including their own user_talk, &c., &c.).

When trophying is a problem, then those are of a different type, if there are a handful of identified socks, I indeed don't see any reason to keep them all, it would be better to document them centrally somewhere in a proper way, and clear all accounts. Methods of those who do search for as yet not identified long term problems do use more functions of detection and when cases overlap, we will notice that in most of the cases. As I said earlier, there is no reason keeping all the Grawp pages, there deny and ignore make more sense than trophy. The problem lies in the deleted tracks where there is no further link implied earlier, deletion of pages related to such cases makes life more difficult (especially for non-admins and cross-wiki trackers who do not have sufficient rights locally).

I think we have two 'conflicting' pathways here, vandals who on one side want to keep their trophies, while on the other hand, another type of vandal is very happy with removal of the pages (as e.g. spammers and POV pushers are often very unhappy when their tracks are documented as a problem, OTRS for long was bombarded with deletion requests for the COIBot reports), and in the latter case, it also 'helps' the vandal in making the tracks to this type of vandal even more difficult to follow. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• There should be no such thing as an “uncontroversial deletion” not covered at WP:CSD. The most frustrating thing I found about “the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users” was that such deletions were undocumented in written policy that I thought important to read. Perhaps there was documentation somewhere? Similarly, I objected to oldip pages being mass speedily deleted per a section at WP:UP, a relative policy backwater. Please, if there are pages that should be deleted without an XfD, document it WP:CSD, where it can be openly referenced, discussed, criticised, defended and amended. The problem with routine undocumented administrative actions is that they become routine, unquestioned, unaccountable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  Agree with this wholeheartedly. CSD is the process we have for uncontroversial deletions. As far as I can make out, the CAT:TEMP concept was supported on the basis of one thread on AN, but I'll have to hunt down the links. Of course, the link is helpfully provided at the top by Vassyana. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • • CAT:TEMP predates that AN thread by a couple years. Mr.Z-man 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This is true. Also true that I don't see much consensus above for continuing the practice (or mandating the cessation of it, either). So where should we go from here? Continued discussion, straw poll, RfC, or just let it die?--Aervanath (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to continue with such deletions in the absence of consensus, and no argument with the assertion that in the absence of an agreed WP:CSD criteria, routine speedy deletions should not occur (even if once they did). Claims of a past consensus do not override a need for consensus now, given that some people have pled for the practice to stop with claims of actual hindrance for no apparent gain.

Logically, this means STOP. Stop deleting anything where the deletion is not authorised generally by WP:CSD or specifically by an XfD.

Should a CSD criteria covering whatever type of talk pages be introduced? I don’t think so. There seems to be no case for their deletion other than a few people who dislike allegedly useless pages. Others are merely in the habit of deleting them. Their continued existence as live pages is not causing actual problems. Specific types of pages are already covered by existing criteria. Special cases can go to WP:MfD.

However, if I am wrong, and there is a reason to routinely delete talk pages, then propose it at WT:CSD, or if such deletions are already occurring, then add the description of the practice to WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD already says:

Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion.

Does this not already say that if a case is not specificied (at WP:CSD), then it may not be deleted without discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This might mean that we need to have discussions on every single page of indef blocked users which might be suitable for deletion. Except for some who are very active on such discussion pages, most editors who are mainly active in other fields (but who may have interest in the talkpages in the end) do not see them, and as those are discussions, when general agreement is reached that they can be deleted, even when one editor strongly suggests that the editor has been involved in some form of 'coordinated vandalism' (which is anyway generally true for editors who manage to get indef blocked), the page would be deleted anyway. Also, we do have editors who come back after long, long time (on different IPs or usernames) performing their 'signature vandalism'. Deletion at first seems reasonable (as the signature vandalism is not recognised then), but cases exist where the old tracks would be very useful. And even, the signature vandalism may not even be recognised earlier.

However, if we use other methods to clear this up, then we would not have these problems and discussions, and some solutions can even be done automated (e.g. replacing the active contents with a standard template, making sure it is no-indexed etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I just met an editor who uses deletion templates to either delete or improve articles that he personally thinks are important (using CSD and PROD). Is this proper? (see Gordonrox24 (talk · contribs)) and Talk:Joseph-Armand Bombardier

70.29.213.241 (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I could see a reasonable argument in favor of using AfD for this, but CSD and PROD are definitely the wrong way to go. First, it overloads the backlogs for both, and second risks getting pages deleted too quickly that may simply have scarce sources available, but which are otherwise notable. AfD at least gives people a week to discuss, and creates a sense of urgency to improve the page while also allowing the opportunity to follow through. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears is right on target. Even AfD is not the recommended route for improving articles, either. While it can sometimes indirectly force editors to improve a page to Wikipedia specs in order to avoid deletion, they don't always get improved this way, and may get deleted, which is counterproductive. The best way to improve an article is to do it yourself, not go through the deletion processes.--Aervanath (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go one stronger: nominating an article for deletion when the nominator believes the topic has merit and wants to see the article improved is a bad-faith action and a violation of WP:POINT--albeit a small one. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more with Jclemens on this. If the only reason for nomination is to force improvement (referencing, rewrite, etc.), the nom deserves at least a minnow.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually disagree with most of the above. While CSD and PROD are clearly wrong, AFD is a viable option. Viable subjects don't deserve to have CRAP articles. If an article is full of POV, unsourced material, original research, etc then it should be deleted and an AFD will bear that out. Even if the subject is marginally worthy of an article, it still has to meet certain minimum standards. If the person who nom'ed an article that is worth keeping in the current state, then the AFD will bear that fact out as well. There has to be a valid reason for AfD to delete and IDONTLIKEIT isn't sufficeint. That being said, if said editor was noming articles wholesale that were all keepers, then I would have problem as s/he would be tying up the process to make a point. But if the article needs to be deleted or cleaned up, I don't oppose doing that.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The premise here was that the editor is nominating articles they believe are important. So instead of making the effort to fix them, even if that means taking a chainsaw to it, they are shoving the whole thing over to AfD. That strikes me as either pointy or rude ("I don't feel like working on this, but I don't mind causing others to run around and improve it on my timetable). Yes, it's great when improvement can save an article at AfD. But I have a problem with editors who use the AfD hammer to force instant improvement with no effort on their part.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There are articles out there that I may think are important articles, but are not worth keeping in their current state. While I am willing to work on articles, that doesn't mean that I have the knowledge or interest to work on every article I might come across that needs serious help. In some cases, we might be better off sending the article through AFD than leaving a POS sitting around. If the article is worth keeping either somebody will fix it or the community will say so.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The deletion rocesses are in place if you think the article ought to be deleted, so usually an article should only be brought to AFD or PROD if there is no hope for it. In a few cases, an article on what might be a worthy subject is so bad that it's actively harmful, and for those cases nominating it for deletion may well be a good faith action. When I say "harmful", I mean full of misinformation, lies, propaganda, and so on. Problems like an underdeveloped stub, poor formatting, or parts missing are generally fixable, and AFD should not be used to whip people into fixing stuff like that. If the problem is lack of references, but references are obviously available, then there is far less work involved in looking for some general references than there is in formulating a good rationale for deletion and then running it through the process, so the former course of action is generally preferable. Such references can initially just be added as a general reference at the end of the article, don't worry too much about inline citations at this stage unless you have ambitions to raise the article to B-class or higher. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

there is also a range where the article might be possibly notable or not, and you think the community should decide. I've AfD'd on that basis and said so. DGG (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

I too agree with Fabrictramp. As a practical matter AFD prompts action, and crap article should be removed, even if the subject is notable. The desire to comment on an AFD doesn't necessarily translate into the desire to research and rewrite an article, and the risk of a poor article on the subject is very real. All such AFD nominations though should be in good faith. Articles that should and can easily be repaired should not be deleted. But that doesn't mean crap articles should stay around because they can plausibly be repaired, and after one week that answer presents itself clearly in the majority of cases. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

let's say there are an equal number of people trying to delete or to rescue borderline articles. One person can easily and reasonably nominate 2 or 3 articles a day for deletion. The eds. I see who are best at it can fix perhaps two or three a week, if its more than trivial. there's a certain imbalance here. DGG (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG on this one. So what if it's a "crap article"? If it has the potential to be improved, it should stay. There is no deadline.--Aervanath (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much everything that meets the inclusion criteria has the potential to be improved, yet we delete articles for reasons other than notability all the time. "If it has the potential to be improved, it should stay" is a massive oversimplification.

1. Is anyone willing to improve it? If not, it may be better to wait for someone who cares/knows enough to write a decent article than to have a piece of crap sitting around for years.
2. Is anything in the current state or the history salvageable? If one has to totally rewrite the article from scratch, having to work around the existing text may be more of a hindrance than anything else.
3. How compliant with policy is the article? If its just poorly written, that's not a huge deal, but serious POV problems and WP:NOT issues really shouldn't be sitting around for a long time as they reflect poorly on the project as a whole and can provide bad content to readers.
4. Has the subject requested deletion? When we have a poorly written article about a marginally notable living person, if the subject has expressed concerns, we should take those into account per "do no harm."

-- Mr.Z-man 17:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

... which all really boil down to "Is the current article better than no article at all?" Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)