Deletion (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles

Archives

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is a reasonable and uncontroversial edit; per WP:NOTBURO it is consensus that is important, not the location that the consensus takes place at, and it aligns with practice as demonstrated at a recent VPR discussion. However, BeanieFan11 today reverted that change, saying rvt billedmammal's change to policy without discussion and if thats true, than surely you'll achieve consensus when you bring it up for discussion - but for now, this is a somewhat major change to a policy that has not been discussed - it needs to be discussed to be added.

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

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

  Normally, you don't insist that a change is discussed unless you actually have an issue with the change; consensus can be achieved through editing. As such, I am hoping that BeanieFan11 can explain what their issue with the change is.

  Other venues that the community accepts as suitable are WP:VPR; others may exist but I cannot think of them at the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  (As for GRuban's close, they cited both IAR and WP:NOTBURO as the reason why the specific - and bureaucratic - wording of this policy didn't apply. Given NOTBURO will always apply, it seems sensible and in line with the WP:LUGSTUBS consensus to align this policy with that policy.) BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Objecting solely on the grounds that we need an RfC to change policy is not aligned with practice or policy. – Exactly: An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. And likewise, your view of "I-can-make-any-change-to-policy-I-want-and-if-someone-reverts-it-then-my-opinion-trumps-theirs" (not just here but at other pages such as WP:CANVASSING as well) is also not based in policy. I simply disagree that you can make major changes to policy to support a series of controversial RFCs that you're proposing. That's my objection. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm asking you to explain why you are disputing it; to explain what issues you can see this change causing, or why you don't see it addressing the current WP:NOTBURO issue. Disputing it on the grounds that you are disputing it is a nice tautology, but neither useful nor aligned to the "D" in WP:BRD. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  This change was made months ago, as a consequence of the consensus of WP:LUGSTUBS showing that the community didn't agree with the exact wording of the policy. It is unrelated to the current RfC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason is that it doesn’t align with practice and it violates WP:NOTBURO. It’s bureaucratic silliness that ANI and the village pump are allowed to delete articles but not draftify them, and it’s also bureaucratic silliness to forbid us from establishing a consensus to draftify articles in locations that are more visible and receive more participation than AFD.

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

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

It's not really relevant, but this isn't a core policy. The only core policies are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR.

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural arguments aren't relevant; we're not a bureaucracy, and there is nothing requiring changes to policy to be done by RfC. As far as I can tell, the only non-procedural objection is that this change is "controversial", which is hard to justify when no one has presented an actual argument against the change.

I do note Harper J. Cole's comments about the wording, but we don't need a RfC to wordsmith this. Perhaps Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as the village pump? It keeps the wording flexible to comply with WP:NOTBURO, for there may be venues that are suitable that we can't think of here, while establishing that there are limitations on what venues are suitable. BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  Would this version address your concerns: Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitably prominent venue, such as the village pump? BilledMammal (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

Deletion should not be used for archiving a page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunh. I missed that guideline change entirely. I hadn't thought we'd ever even start to undo the damage the Radman1/GRider sockfarm did to the notability guidelines in general and the school one in particular, almost 20 years ago now. —Cryptic 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Los Angeles, London or Lagos would be a very poor destination for a merge or redirect because coverage of non-notable individual secondary schools (regardless of their notability) will almost always be highly WP:UNDUE. Instead a better would more often be the article about the relevant neighbourhood or education in (a subdivision of) the city concerned. The best target and how much to merge (in some cases everything suitable will already be at the target) needs to be considered individually and of course there will be examples where there is no appropriate target to merge or redirect to. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

In a word, yes.

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

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

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

In a word, no.

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

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

I see 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]

@Mangoe: It seems to me that your addition was contradicted by the very next paragraph of WP:ATD, which states If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, as well as WP:PRESERVE. – Joe (talk) 05:55, 25 October 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]