Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

I'm kinda surprised

For some reason, every time i check the "talk" page of some article i always see that it was nominated for deletion. Why you want to remove 75% of your articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.3.197 (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]

@149.62.3.197: - you may just be checking an odd group of articles, given we delete such a tiny fraction of the c.6 million. Of those that survive a month, almost none are deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]

fwiw, of the total number of submission to draft and article space, about one-half remain in the encyclopedia -- this has been approximately constant for the last 10 or 12 years. About 1/2 are for lack of notability, 1/2 for promotionalism--and some for other reasons , like copyvio or BLP. Before we had Draft space, the deletions were from article space --now that we have Draft, articles from new editors go there first, and most of the promotional and hopelessly non-notable articles are removed there. This is followed up by a much more effective New Pages Patrol, so inappropriate articles get removed much sooner. There are still a few hundred thousand from earlier years when standards were lower that we need to remove. As for why we needto remove half the submissions, its becauseof the great attraction of enWP to promotional editors, along with the rise of undeclared paid editing DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Archiving

The text reads: "Deletion should not be used for archiving a page. The developers have indicated that the deleted pages can be cleared or removed from the database at any time." based on a comment by Brian Vibber in 2007. I dont think this is actually the current practice, nor has it been for many years now. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Since 2007, storage has only become much cheaper, I don’t think Brian’s warning is likely to be carried out. Still, deletion should not be used for archiving a page. Another reason is that non-admins have good reasons to have access to project history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Paid editing disclosures and deletion

I suggest adding an extra item to WP:DEL-REASON:

15. Articles created in violation of the policy on paid editing disclosures.

The policy Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and the relevant WMF terms of use impose strict disclosure requirements on paid editing, including disclosing the employer, client, and affiliation for every paid editing contribution. However, in practice the policy doesn't have real teeth in terms of enforcement. Paid editing has become a widespread phenomenon and many paid articles are created by SPAs, that create a single comissioned article and then disappear. Often they make no disclosures or only partial paid editing disclosures. Such editors would not be significantly deterred by post factum blocking. I think that at least in the cases where a partial disclosure has occurred, we should be able to delete the article, via AfD, after it has been created in mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[]

I basically agree, but it has been proposed before, and failedof adoption. The basic reason is that is is not all that easy to be sure what actually consititutes paid editing. The prevalence of promotionalism in the world leads to good faith new editors writing promotionally, because they think that's what is wanted here. Even after years of experience, I still make mistakes about this. What works fairly well instead, is our higher standards for notability in susceptible fields, and our increased willingness to delete because of the"combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism" -- I've used that phrase many times at Afd. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Interesting, thanks. I was thinking about the situations where a partial diclosure of paid editing was made (leaving no doubt that paid editing did occur) but where the partial disclosure did not comply with the requirement of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. I recently came accross a case of this kind, Mark Boguski, when I saw this article in the prod category as having been prodded. The subject's WP:PROF notability is not borderline; e.g. because he is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine. The article went through the AfC, and, as Talk:Mark Boguski indicates, somebody brought up the issue of paid editing while the article was still pending at AfC. Then the creator, User:Declanwilson410 made a partial paid editing disclosure in Talk:Mark Boguski#Compensation Disclosure. The disclosure did not comply with WP:PAID since the user did not disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to this paid contribution. After the partial disclosure, the article was still moved from AfC to mainspace, by an admin, no less. That was back in November 2017. I did leave a note at User talk:Declanwilson410#Paid editing on Mark Boguski asking for a fuller disclosure, but, of course, by that time the editor has long since disappeared. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

• To my reading, consensus evident at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_48#Undeclared_Paid_Editor_(UPE)_product was lacking to support this edit. I think all participating then should be pinged. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]
  • OK, thans, I am pinging the participants of the Archive48 thread you linked (liiks like the group ping template has a limit of ten users being pinged...) Participants in the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_48#Undeclared_Paid_Editor_(UPE)_product (King of Hearts—Legacypac—Pppery—TonyBallioni—Bhunacat10—Pythoncoder—Graywalls—Ivanvector—Bsherr—DGG)@Thryduulf:@SmokeyJoe:
  • Here are my further thoughts on the matter. I think this situation is analogous to WP:G5 and should be treated the same way. For articles created by banned users, the quality, notability, absence of promotionalism etc are completely irrelevant; we still delete such articles via WP:G5. In the case of WP:PAID, creating an article in violation of WP:PAID is categorically prohibited, both by the Wikipedia policy and by the WMF policy. We should not just disregard these policies and pretend that they don't exist. If we allow articles (including high quality neutrally written non-promotional articles on unambiguously notable topics) created in violation of WP:PAID's prohibition to remain, not only are we enabling rule breaking, we are also actively sabbotaging the WP:PAID policy itself and WMF's terms of use. That's why I think that such articles should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]
• There are cases where we block paid editors - in that case, we've hopefully demonstrated paid editing to our level of satisfaction. It could be a legitimate way of use then, with the same exemptions as the blocked editor CSD (another significant editor etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]
• (edit conflict) Very strongly oppose adding this. If the article is not speedily deletable under an existing criterion, particularly G3, G5, G11 or A7 then it is not sufficiently problematic that we need to delete it without discussion. G5 is different because it is easy to verify whether all revisions of an article were or were not created by a given user, it is not possible to easily determine with certainty whether an editor is or is not editing for pay and, if they are, whether they have correctly disclosed (given that there are multiple ways in which disclosure is explicitly permitted and it may be retrospective).
  It is important to remember that while there is an overlap between promotional editing and undisclosed paid editing they are very far from the same thing and it is trivially easy to find examples of edits that are one but not the other, and ultimately it is promotional (and otherwise biased) editing that harms the encyclopaedia, not whether an editor was or was not paid to make that edit. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Most of what you say is arguing against the WP:PAID policy itself. As long as that policy remains in effect, we should enforce it. Regarding G5: I am not suggesting creating a new CSD criterion here, just adding a reason for deletion. IMO, any deletions based on violations of WP:PAID would need to go through AfD (or XfD), and they should only occur if there is no doubt that paid editing has taken place. The Mark Boguski mentioned above is a good example. The article's creator made an exlicit acknowledgement of being a paid editor for this article, but that acknowlegement fell far short of the WP:PAID disclosure requirements. Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

This may be viewed as a feature or a bug, but an AfD reasoning based off that would mean that a single editor could edit it and use that as justification for its removal, even if major (but non-AfDable) issues remained. We don't want to make it non-removable during AfD (WP:HEY), but not gamable would be worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Hmmm. I see two possible ways of handling this issue. If such an article is listed at an AfD and substantial edits to it are made during the AfD, the closing admin can perform a selective deletion (redacting out a portion of the history log) via RevDel, under item 5 of WP:CFRD, instead of deleting the article itself. If substantial edits by other editors are already present when the issue is first identified, then instead of nominating the article for an AfD the apropriate route would be to request selective deletion via WP:REVDELREQUEST, by directly contacting some admin. In both cases, using item 5 of WP:CFRD still requires invoking WP:DEL-REASON, so the latter would need to be revised first. Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Even for banned or blocked editors, removal is optional, not required-- see WP:BANREVERT. Even for G5, if an editor in good standing takes responsibility for it to the extent of making substantial edits, the article is not deleted by speedy, for it no longer meets G5; nor do we generally use REVDEL. but just revert. Similarly, even we used a G5-like criterion for undeclared paid editing, an editor in good standing could rescue it with substantial edits , for it would no longer be entirely written by the undeclared paid editor. Any change here would affect multiple other policies, and require a general RfC. I think it was Kudpong suggested, that the generous use of G11 will deal with most of it.

However, Thryduulf, keeping UPE does all by itself harm the encyclopedia because it encourages other paid editors. Nsk92. I do not think that failure to make the full declaration in the Boguski instance matters all that much--it was obviously made at the direction of him or his employer. The reason for the full disclosure is to help track down and discourage other paid editors--it is important, but I would be very reluctant to delete otherwise acceptable articles under it. What was necessary at Bogarski was the subsequent substantial removal of fluff by Doc James; I may do a little more myself. And, the true fundamental and fixable problem that is completely under our own control, was that the article should have been written by a volunteer editor many years ago--he was elected to the NAS back in 2001. Our failure to cover major people in major fields is one reason why people use paid editing. It would be much easier to remove the non-notable (which are generally promotional also, and often paid), if some effort were made to extend complete coverage to fields like science, not just sports. As is, medical scientists have a remarkable tendency to get articles when they found start-ups, or when their start-ups are acquired by a major company. DGG ( talk ) 13:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

• Advertising is already a reason to delete, even if something is notable. See WP:NOTSPAM. Focusing on the disclosure rather than the advertising confuses the issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]
• Undisclosed paid editing is a user conduct issue, not an article content issue (particularly given that disclosed paid editing is not a violation). A block is the deterrent for undisclosed paid editing. (At least in my opinion, that deterrent is sufficient.) There is a fine line between a deterrent and a punishment (arguably there is no line, but our policies distinguish between the two). Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive, and deleting otherwise acceptable content solely because of a user conduct issue fails that test. Besides being punitive, all other factors being equal, an article edited by an undisclosed paid editor is indistinguishable from any other article, so, since our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, deleting otherwise acceptable content is inconsistent with that goal. I thus agree with Thryduulf. Making that point is not inconsistent with WP:PAID, which is silent (I believe, intentionally) about what, if anything, should be done with content created by undisclosed paid editors (because it is a user conduct policy, not a content policy). (Lastly, although I am critical of WP:G5 for the same reason, in the case of a user evading a block or ban, that is really the only deterrence tool left, so I see a better justification.) --Bsherr (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Sockpuppetry is also a user conduct issue and yet we delete, per WP:G5, articles created by socks of blocked users, regardless of the quality of those articles. Blocking editors for failure to properly disclose PE has been an ineffective deterrent. I have not seen any such blocks myself (if they exist, they must be really rare), but I have seen plenty of undisclosed or insufficiently disclosed paid editing. Most of paid editors operate as SPAs. They come, create a single paid article, and then disappear. Blocking them after the fact would not serve as an effective deterrent even if such blocking was done more agressively than now. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Under the current policy, I believe an article is deletable if it has been created by one of the accounts in a sockfarm where one or more of the accounts have been banned. That would be deletable under article created by banned user policy. The most difficult challenge is identifying SPA and sock.Generally speaking, paid editing has become very pervasive and they're very frequently undisclosed. Paid doesn't have to mean specific payment for the specific task. Salaried external relations/public relations personnel making changes to the company's own page or on topics related to the company while on payroll is considered paid tooGraywalls (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[]

• Support We are generally talking about articles created by socks, but it is hard to fully verify whether or not someone is sock which makes G5 hard to actually apply. G11 is fairly subjective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[]
  • G11 and G5 are a lot less subjective than almost all cases of suspected undisclosed paid editing. We should always be focused on the content and not the contributor - if you cannot tell from looking at it whether someone was paid to write it then we have absolutely no justification for deleting it for any reason that we would not use to delete text written by a volunteer. Content doesn't magically become bad just because someone we didn't like wrote it - content is good or bad because it is good or bad content, not because of who wrote it (and yes this applies equally to G5, which is a reason to reign in that not to expand the inappropriate actions to more content.). Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[]
• Support: Any move that hampers clear paid editing including unintended (or intended) stealth support. We should never delete an article under unfounded suspicions but making it easy by 1)- you cannot undertake paid editing, 2)- There is still a better than average chance you may still get paid. Your edit may not get deleted if you are caught clearly making undisclosed paid editing, therefore you can collect. That seems to be what arguing it is a "user conduct issue, not an article content issue" advances. I also think it naive to consider someone getting paid will only create one article then leave. Why would someone "leave" if they have found a cash cow that we inadvertently support? I imagine SPA's (that only creates articles for monetary gain) visit AFD as often as anyone. Otr500 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[]
• Support. Blocking is not a deterrent because the cost of creating a new throw-away account is zero. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[]

To follow up on that, WP:NOTSPAM is an insufficient tool. What it says is, Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. So, we end up with, either through the work of the more sophisticated spammers, or via WP:BOGOF volunteers, well written spam. But it's still spam. The goal of the spammers is to get articles written for their paid clients, for SEO and/or general vanity/PR purposes. This leads to selection bias, where our content is preferentially enriched with articles about subjects who are willing to pay. We are essentially turned into a vanity press. We forbid the use of vanity presses as sources, why should we be willing to turn ourselves into one?

As it stands, the economic cost-benefit analysis to spammers is clear. If you fail to disclose, it eliminates the anti-spam bias many reviewers have. That's the benefit. I imagine some clients prefer disclosure not be made, to give the article a greater sense of veritas. The cost is zero. The worst that happens is you get caught and are forced to disclose. Being blocked is meaningless (and cost-free), since most spammers create throw-away accounts for each job.

If I was somebody making a living writing wikispam, I probably wouldn't disclose, given the current playing field. The threat of deletion is our big stick to get them to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[]

• Oppose We should be judging article content, not article editors, in my view. I have never really liked G5, which leads in some cases to deleting perfectly valid articles cereated by block-evading socks. This proposal seems worse to me. If the article complies with WP:NPOV and is properly sourced, it is a net gain to the project. If not, WP:NOTSPAM or other content policies will apply. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[]
• Oppose as unworkable, and broadly detrimental, to add motherhood statements on unverifiable criteria. There needs to be an objective criteria what detection of "undeclared paid editing" before casual AfD reviewers can be asked to comment on nominations to delete on the basis of alleged UPEditing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[]
• Oppose per DESiegel, SmokeyJoe, and others above. If taken literally and enforced across the board then this could cause unknown damage to the encyclopedia. Even though a higher level of scrutiny should definitely be focused on paid editor's creations, if a page is properly sourced, the topic is notable, and the page has or would stand the test of time (and an AfD) aside from the creator's paid status, then the paid editor's work should outlast their own stay on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[]
• Mixed, Support for the reasoning given (we should just delete material that is basically spammed to Wikipedia). The problem is already too much that it pays to be paid for editing ... and Wikipedia is not worse if we delete articles which we were not supposed to have in the first place, and hence this / G5 can be a way to deny the editor their success. Oppose because it is difficult to objectively decide that someone is a undeclared paid editor - it may be an editor with a conflict of interest and lack of understanding, and not necessarily someone who gets paid for the material. More objective is the determination whether material is notable, and/or whether it promotional beyond repair. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Comments: My disdain for paid editing cannot, nor should not by anyone, be used to cast aspirations or fling accusations. There is a process we generally follow to ascertain if an editor is editing as paid. Surmising "IF" "COI or paid editing is involved", and using that as a rationale in AFD discussions or AFD closings when there is no proof, to me, is paramount to assuming total bad faith. If there is clear indications that an editor is paid, or very likely might be paid, then "someone" should investigate but we should never sling unfounded accusations. I recently weighed in to that effect at AFD. Money gives an unarguable edge as to reasons why we should fight spam and paid editing on Wikipedia. I am for any move that hinders COI editing but never that might support the making of false accusations. If there is clear evidence of paid editing that is an big red flag that person is not here to actually contribute to this encyclopedia and any contributions should be scrutinized very closely. I have seen cases where an article involves COI/paid editing but the subject of the article is notable.

However, one thing seems clear. It is not a bad thing to hamper paid editing. Previous attempts to add wording have apparently failed (per DGG above) because it "is not all that easy to be sure what actually consititutes paid editing.". As far as I can tell the above suggestion (adding #15) does not indicate reasoning that we should "immediately delete" said articles. 1)- We do use the rationale often associated with COI/paid editing such as Reasons for deletion (#4) of advertising and spam, 2)- Regardless of reasoning the "Reasons for deletion" center around notability and not article content. When COI/paid editing are clear then there is reason to examine good faith a little closer. Not many would agree to pay for an article to be created that is crappy or that does not paint a good picture of the subject so would be biased. This is even more important considering our BLP policies and guidelines where company heads get articles created of clearly dubious notability. If I was involved in a startup company part of the process would be "getting the company info "out there" and what better place than to spend startup capital than advertising on Wikipedia. Does that happen? Come on of course it does! Will it stop? Only if the economy crashes or we make it as hard as possible.

Adding wording that is already used will not be a detriment. If there is doubts it will be misused then add:

• 15. Articles created in clear violation of the policy on paid editing disclosures.

I do not see this as an attempt to change change the policy of "PAID" but as a reinforcement that paid editors should follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest especially using AFC when there is a conflict. The reason back-door avenues are used is that money is involved (and not necessarily notability) and this mandates an article being fast-tracked. This clearly violates more than one policy and guideline so we should not make it any easier by being so vague as to indirectly support paid editing.

I am going to fight it when I see it but I leave the investigating part to editors more experienced in this area. I DO NOT and will not support false accusations or just tossing the words around to gain support at AFD or anywhere else. I would never want that to happen to me so consider that when it is being discussed. I will start warning editors that make unfounded assertions. If there is clear evidence there is possible, probable, or very likely paid editing this needs to be looked at and we have steps that can be taken. We should not unjustly attack any editor but we should not make the path to paid editing more profitable.

"IF" "creating an article in violation of WP:PAID is categorically prohibited" then how could it not be a listed reason for consideration of reasons to delete? IF valid concerns of paid editing are at issue then we should always "take a closer look. IF there is deemed notability and any editor in good standing champions the article I will immediately support a WP:Hey. I welcome anyone that can sensibly counter this. Otr500 (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[]

• Support: Per my comments above and those of User:Nsk92. While we don't want a confusion between plain COI, paid editing, and just a fan creating an article or someone that adds advertising content in good faith, we should not ever make it easier for this to flourish. At the least we should not be so lax that circumvention is a given. If there are clear indications of paid editing, we should at the very least acknowledge that it would be a reason for deletion. Otr500 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Redirecting

The current wording of WP:ATD-R is:

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirect § Redirects that replace previous articles

If redirection will not leave an unsuitable trailing redirect, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and Wikipedia:Requests for Comment.

A few observations/suggestions:

1. There's no need to point out that any user can turn an article into a redirect: the other alternatives to deletion are also open to everyone, but this point is made only in this section. I think it can safely be left out, but if ultimately it's judged that an explicit mention is needed, then it should be added at the top of the "Alternatives to deletion" section, not here.

2. WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT is linked both in the "Further information" hatnote and in the first sentence of the text. I believe only one link is enough.

3. I think the part about unsuitability of the redirect should be unpacked a little bit and linked to a page that explains which redirects are unsuitable.

4. I don't think we should encourage the use of WP:RFC straight away as a means of challenging a bold redirect. Sure, this is available as an option, but only after informal discussions have proved unsuccessful.

In light of the above, I'm proposing the following text for this section:

A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

5. More tentatively, I'm also proposing to rename the section from "Redirection" to "Redirecting". I've been participating at redirect-related venues for years, and the first term strikes me as odd. At the very least, it's not as commonly used: WP:Redirect has no mentions of "redirection" in the text, but it has eight instances of "redirecting" used as a noun for the action of creating a redirect. Is there any reason for preferring "redirection"? – Uanfala (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[]

• If there are no objections in another week or two, I'll be implementing the proposed change. – Uanfala (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[]

PERMADEL

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Archiving is a brief section with the following content:

Shortcut

• WP:PERMADEL

Deletion should not be used for archiving a page. The developers have indicated that the deleted pages can be cleared or removed from the database at any time.

The first sentence is alright, but the second one could raise some eyebrows. I've asked about it at the village pump, and from the two responses given there I'm left with the impression it is not particularly germane any more. I'm proposing that the second sentence be removed, along with the shortcut, so that the section would look like this:

Deletion should not be used for archiving a page.

– Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

I request the deletion of my edits from wikipedia and delete my ip address account on here 71.241.214.63 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[]

That is neither an edit request nor possible. Sandstein 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Proposed clarification of policy - biographies of children who are now adults

I believe the deletion policy should be clearer on a particular point. If a person became notable as a child, are now a relatively unknown, non-public figure, and as an adult request deletion, it should happen (given consensus, of course). However, an important part of this is that the now adult should not have to become an editor to do so, and if they want to remain anonymous, they should be able to do so. Privacy is a human right, and we should not make the subject surrender it now, because someone made a decision for them as a child.

If there is something of a consensus on this, Ill go ahead and draw up an actual edit we can discuss. Rklahn (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]

The silence is notable. Im going to close this discussion by archiving it. Rklahn (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Draft snowballs

Draft:Adith Saji has as its body:

content redacted

It is cited only to the subject's own website.

It has the proverbial snowball's chance of being published. But I can't PROD it, and it doesn't seem to meet CSD. How can it be got rid of, in order that it wastes no further editor time? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Honestly it should be deleted as a matter of privacy since (Redacted). Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Good point, but what if it were not? AfD seems overkill. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Let it die the normal slow g13 death. There's no harm in it existing in draft space (in the theoretical situation, the PII of minors is harmful.) Praxidicae (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[]

I am across the article because it was in an error-tracking category; that wasted my time. "No harm" is thus false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[]

I think the implication is that "a draft that is not worth keeping, but does not meet the CSD criteria for deletion" is not harming anyone if it sits around for six months. Obviously if it's in an error-tracking category, fix the issue(s) to get it out. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Without commenting directly on the content of this specific draft:

• If it's suppressible information, email the oversight team.
• If it's an attack page, nominate as G10. If there's just a little bit, remove and email Oversight for revdel.
• If it's neither of the above, do what Prax suggests and just let it die a natural G13 death.

Nothing wrong with having garbage in the draft space, it's kind of why it exists. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Nomination for requested deletion

Hi, I've recently listed the article Album of the Year (website) for requested deletion. Although my original edit contained a fairly detailed explanation of my concerns, the text did not come through with the addition, for some reason. I've since added my reasoning again but this has resulted in the text appearing in triplicate – at least from what I'm seeing on screen. If anyone knows how to fix this error, or can suggest another page to visit, I'd be much obliged; totally inexperienced with this procedure and the template(s) ... Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Problem with prose

Primefac, a rule of thumb: if someone goes to the trouble to indicate prose is unclear, it's probably unclear. And they might not be able to articulate exactly why it is unclear because, well, it is unclear and incomprehensible to them. I had to draw a flow/logic chart to try to grok that paragraph and couldn't. In the sentence "where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus" it's reasonable to read that as "no rough consensus to delete." If it means either way, you could edit in either way (instead of reverting) and specify whether it's conjunctive or disjunctive, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, it has the typical problems of passivity (it's not clear who is "closing" and/or deleting) and jargon ("PROD").

If you can clearly specify it here, I'll help with the prose (once I understand what is being said). Or, if you want to specify cases, that'll work too. -Reagle (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[]

That's fair enough, and apologies if I seemed like I was just brushing you off. Obviously what's clear to one person (i.e. me) is not necessarily clear to another (i.e. you). To me "no consensus" means that there isn't any clear "result", so it doesn't matter if the intention was to keep or delete there was no agreement to do either. However, parsing (and re-parsing) that sentence, it doesn't really make any sense to refer to any sort of "no consensus"; if anything, it should say "no clear consensus to keep" because of the three options (keep, delete, or no consensus) only "keep" would result in the article being kept (a "no consensus" in this case would default to delete if the subject has requested it). Primefac (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the response, I've tweaked the prose a bit to follow this. I think clarity could be improved if you wrote the three conditions as bullets with similar grammatical structure here. For example:

• • Delete IF biography is poorly sourced, AND of non-public figure, AND no consensus to keep.
  • Delete IF subject requests deletion AND non-public figure AND no consensus to keep. [If the first bullet is true, what does it matter if the subject requests or not?]
  • Delete IF ... -Reagle (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[]

    Or... just stick with "if there is no clear consensus to keep", which fits all of those bullet points. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[]