Welcome to destall.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • Review: Provisional draft #2 of the new arbitration policy.
  • Proposal: Proposal to create user-space redirects.
  • Poll: Should WP:NOT#PLOT be reworded, moved, removed, or kept the same?
  • RFC: Is there community support to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales?
  • Poll: How does the community feel regarding how the civility policy is applied and enforced on Wikipedia?
  • Discussion: Should notability criteria for pornographic actors be rolled back?
  • RFC: Naming guidelines for Macedonia
  • Preliminary (userspace) discussion on Wikipedia governance issues.
  • RFC: Should Wikipedia prevent Google and other search engines from searching User pages?
  • RFC: Should a bot unlink dates?
  • RFC. Outside opinions are solicited on self electing groups.
  • RFC: What is the community's opinion on using {{Italictitle}} to italicise certain articles' titles?
  • RFC: What is the community's view of paid editing?
  • Poll: About the preferred usage names as a result of WP:RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
  • Discussion: Ordering and general presentation of talk page templates.
  • RFC: Simplifying speedy deletion policy

A new page to keep track of discussions throughout Wikipedia has been created: Wikipedia:Coordination

A new noticeboard has been created: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch


Shortcuts:
WT:DEL
Archive
Archives

2008
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Contents

[edit] Question: Deletion policy for neutral unsourced articles about living persons

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)

[edit] Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages

Limited previous discussion:

Relevant "main" page for this process:

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)

[edit] Improvement through deletion?

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

[edit] Proposal to create a section for BLPs and to default to delete

Currently, this policy has no section for BLPs. Seeing as how BLPs should get special thought and treatment at Wikipedia, I suggest creating a separate section for them. There's currently a sentence or two scattered around, but I think we ought to consolidate into a separate section.

Additionally, the BLP policy says the following: "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. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."

So, I suggest we include a similar statement here: "The burden of evidence rests with those who believe a BLP should be kept. Editors should be able to demonstrate that a BLP complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just those policies and guidelines specifically directed to BLPs, or should at least be able to demonstrate that the BLP could be edited so as to bring it into compliance. A BLP should only be kept if there is consensus that this burden has been met."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've recently learned that people have previously suggested at Wikipedia that BLPs have a "default to delete" policy instead of a "default to keep" policy when there is no clear consensus either way. The discussion occurred in April 2008 at the BLP talk page rather than here.[1][2]

This suggestion has won many endorsements, but not yet enough to be implemented. The main objection seems to have been that BLPs may be nominated for deletion due to other reasons than defamation, privacy violation, or undue weight. Sometimes the article subject might prefer that the article be kept. My response to that would be that it's still better not to include a BLP unless there's a consensus that it could meet all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As a compromise, I could see striking out "guidelines", and just insisting on potential compliance with "policies." Even if the subject wants to be in a dedicated article, the article may still adversely affect other living people who would not want the article to exist, and of course the subject may merely want the article to exist for selfish self-promotion reasons which do not justify it. Additionally, as everyone knows, many editors don't pay much attention to Wikipedia policies, and in fact are positively urged to ignore those policies on some occasions (see WP:IAR). The only way to make sure that Wikipolicies are respected with regard to BLPs is to require consensus that they are being respected.

Also, it's just fundamentally inconsistent and confusing to "default to keep" for a BLP if the actual edits to the article are "default to remove." And the latter is now the case, per WP:BLP. This inconsistency did not exist in April 2008 when this proposal was previously discussed.[3][4]

Full disclosure: I was recently involved in an AfD that didn't turn out as I would have liked.[5] But regardless of that, I think consensus should be required that a BLP follows all policies.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Wikipedia doesn't need borderline BLPs, it doesn't need the controversy and the potential damage. Rarely (with BLPs) is it the case that information, if not recorded now, will be forever lost. If the person is really notable, a better article will be written after they die. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting Fabrictramp's oppose below... I felt is was assumed that certain conditions would be assumed, conditions such as: A valid nomination rationale was given; at least the closing admin agrees; the reason for "no consensus" are due to complex subtleties and interpretations. The sort of AfDs I see this applying to are cases where, if deleted, a current practive at DRV would fail to have it overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support This should not apply to any BLP article's deletion discussion. Only when there reasoning for the deletion is BLP based. We should not for example default to delete because a BLP article was nominated due to being redundant with other content. If the arguments are based on BLP such as "Not a notable figure" or "lack of verifiable information" then yes I agree it should be default to deleted. I don't agree with "complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just those policies and guidelines specifically directed to BLPs", this special BLP exception should apply to BLP issues only and not have its scope expanded. It has been all too common a practice for people to take a rule meant for BLP and extending it into an unrelated debate, that needs to be discouraged. Chillum 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Chillum, there are several reasons why I think it would be unworkable to omit the condition that you mention: "complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just those policies and guidelines specifically directed to BLPs". Many Wikipedia policies such as NPOV and verifiability are blanket policies that are not specifically addressed to BLPs, and we don't want to omit such policies, do we? Also, there are definite advantages to a simple, bright-line rule, and if we get bogged down in a lot of extra conditions and permutations then it will be a much more difficult AFD policy to apply. I agree with you 100% that the default to delete should apply only to BLPs.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose. The burden of showing there's a valid reason for deletion should always be on the deleter. If the article has problems with defamation, unsourced negative content, or other editing issues, then edit it. And frankly, it's even more fundamentally inconsistent and confusing to "default to delete" for a BLP when nothing else defaults to delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Every edit to add content to a BLP is "default to delete", right? So if there's no consensus that anything whatsoever should be added to the article, then what's the point of keeping the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Because the only articles that would get deleted under this proposal that wouldn't be deleted currently are articles where none of the half-dozen people who cruise by the AfD can be bothered to write a decent stub from the sources they know are there. (If they were convinced sources weren't out there, then they would argue that, and the article would be deleted for failing WP:V or WP:N.) Again, that's and editing issue, not a deletion issue, and the time spent dealing with the deletion could easily have been spent editing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What about an article like Levi Johnston? There was no consensus that the article satisfies the requirements of WP:Tabloid, and yet the article has been kept. This happens all the time at Wikipedia; there's no consensus that the BLP satisfies policies, and yet the article is kept anyway. This is a lousy way to deal with biographies of living persons, IMO, and it has very little to do with people cruising by the AfD and not being bothered to write a decent stub.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Gah, my browser crashed after I tried to save my reply. You might want to choose an example that you aren't involved in, especially one that didn't turn out the way you wanted. I really don't want to spend an hour reviewing the article and AfD (although I did spend a not-insignificant amount of time reviewing). Quite frankly, if WP:TABLOID is what you're hinging your complaint on, then you really need to show why you think the Chicago Tribune, CBS news, and CNN should get lumped in with People. (And you may want to read User_talk:Julian_Colton#Levi_Johnston.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When a bunch of anonymous people like ourselves start messing around with the lives of real, non-anonymous people, then we should at least have consensus among ourselves that we're going by the rules, IMO. There are hundreds of reasons why hundreds of BLPs get twisted, and all I'm suggesting is a way to limit the damage. Thanks for that last link to Julian_Colton.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per SmokeyJoe and the very well stated proposal. If more AFD voters actually cared about things other than notability, this might not be necessary, but too many times I've seen absolutely terrible articles be kept at AFD because the subject is borderline notable; for BLPs this is not acceptable. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The standards for BLP are already very different: we very correctly require a higher level of reliability for the sourcing for contentious statements, especially negative ones. And it's only for BLP that ONEEVENT has any meaning, or DONOHARM. These are major restrictions, and BLP discussions are conducted here in terms of adherence to them. The question for a BLP AfD is whether it fails those stricter requirements. That;s enough. There are many reasons why we might not have consensus. any articles , BLPs included, close as noconsensus for reasons unrelated to the special problems of BLP. Some discussions are closed as no consensus because even after relisting not enough people are prepared to discuss them. That's no reason for removal. For other articles, we need consensus to remove according to their standards, for BLP according to the stricter BLP standards. There's already the necessary offset. DGG (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Qualified support - BLPs should default to merge, because with the sort of BLPs we're talking about, there is almost always an obvious merge target, or if not, a less obvious one can generally be found. Defaulting to merge means we don't prejudice a recreation (requiring DRV etc) if at some point a separate article is justified. Rd232 talk 10:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting suggestion. Default to merge sounds like it might be very feasible. I don't think it's ever been suggested before.[6] That may require a separate new discussion at some point.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That's even worse, much worse. If there's problematic BLP content, merges are terrible. A pet peeve of mine, is that all failed poltical candidates for federal/provincial office in (at least) Canada are kept, no matter how bad the content is (except for blatant attacks), and sit there forever, never fixed. If someone warrants a bio, give them one. Otherwise, delete it. But don't relocate (merge) it. Relocation doesn't solve anything. --Rob (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Er I think you're missing the point. If there's consensus to delete bios that fail WP:POLITICIAN, fine. Where such consensus can't be found, but there is no consensus to keep, defaulting to merge would be better; in such cases merge candidates might be a list of some sort, or an article about a local party, and generally would involve much less extraneous detail than defaulting to keep and leaving the bio there. Rd232 talk 10:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Not so. The merged bio will typically keep the same level of detail. There's no minimum size for a standalone bio, which can be trimmed to a single sentence. The merge target is often a "dump site" that nobody edits, except to add more bios. A typical "List of Party X candidates in Election Y" article will have bios that include info about other elections, and info unrelated to any election. Merging also removes an article from appropriate BLP specific categories (I'm thinking mainly of maintenance categories). Leaving these no-consensus BLPs as a stand alone article is better. It would stand a better chance of eventually being fixed, or being renominated for deletion (as failure to fix BLPs is good cause for renomination). --Rob (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Isn't needed per DGG and Fabrictramp. In addition, the use of articles like Levi Johnston is particularly worrying as that's a clear and strong keep candidate IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no need to conflate article content policies with article inclusion guidelines. Unnecessary and confusing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per the arguments above. It is far too easy on many AFDs for a few editors to argue an AFD to a no consensus. Considering there are some regular editors whose standard for where BLPs should be kept are much stricter than community consensus guideline (must be in a "paper encyclopedia" standard as against WP:N and WP:BIO) this would make it far too easy for such editors to no consensus the discussion in order to get them deleted. (And any admin who tried to ignore such arguments in favour of the guidelines would get absolutely pilloried.) Also the argument that this should be apply even to BLPs who want their article here because it affects other BLPs, could also apply to any article in which a BLP is mentioned, thus starting us down the road to default to delete for all (or virtually all) articles. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As DGG said, the standards for BLP content are already much higher than for other articles.--Aervanath (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose A "burden of proof" is not the right way to solve this. Make the bar for notability of BLPs higher if that is what you want. Also who added the sentence "Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." Was there any discussion? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose this horrible mistake.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has become clear to me that this will expand the scope of BLP issues beyond BLP(see my above comment for more information). We need less of that not more. Chillum 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Bad article" status

There are a class of articles that are too notable to delete but too misleading or opinionated to stand unchecked. I was thinking, if an article passes a deletion review, it might be a good idea to have a "Bad Article" shield slapped on it which means, in effect, we don't want to delete this article, but it is potentially misleading to the reader, and should be treated with caution. Serendipodous 09:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we already have tags for that, such as npov and disputed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See Template:Articleissues for an efficient way to tag multiple issues in an article.--Aervanath (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] links to essays in policy pages

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Links_to_essays_in_policy_pages, due to general nature of the issue. - Altenmann >t 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which was not such a smart idea, since now you're not going to get feedback from your reverter. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs