Wikipedia talk:Deletion of pages under construction

Note: This page, which describes pages under construction, is in itself under construction. Discussion from creator shall follow in the coming days. Sebwite (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this page

I have seen a lot of pages in the AfD directory, and had some pages I created myself proposed for deletion (or occasionally speedy deleted) while they have a {{construction}} tag. In some, but not all of these cases, the nom states the reason for proposing the page for deletion even with the construction tag. But often, the nom has not understood the ultimate goal of the page. The frequent scenario is one of follow the leader, in which before the creator learns of the proposed deletion, several others have had a chance to comment and supported deletion of the page, so even if the page is later improved, and it clearly meets Wikipedia's guidelines, the discussion has reached the point of no return, and a concensus to delete remains, resulting in deletion.

The purpose of this proposed policy, which is a part of a deletion process reform I am proposing, is to have a more blanket guideline on when an editor can feel free to move forward with a plan to delete a page under construction, and when such a page should be left alone. I have not completed the project page as of yet - I am gradually adding the various situations for which pages can be deleted, and based on traditional Wikipedia guidelines and common sense, determining the way each situation should be handled. Anyone is welcome to discuss these ideas and change them at will, preferably with a discussion. Sebwite (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing comments

Oppose I'm not interested in an additional instruction providing an artificial means to extend or eliminate deletion debate. I have trust that if the community sees a page actively under construction they will not delete it. If a page requires a "significant" period of time before it will meet the guidelines in a marginal fashion, we should consider stubbing it including only the portions with meet guidelines (i.e. 1-2 sentences that assert notability from verifiable sources) and expanding from that or moving it to userspace. there is no shame in userifying content. Wikipedia isn't paper and there is no deadline to be met but I think policies should reflect some consideration for what should and should not be in articlespace. I have yet to see an article deleted which was undergoing substantive constructive work, on the other hand, improvement to the article is the surest method of prompting a speedy close to the deletion debate. In the case of prod/speedy, {{holdon}} helps to protect articles that aren't in blatant violation. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is shaping up to be pretty snappy. I'm gonna withhold opposing comment until this proposed guideline is in some fixed form. Good job so far! Protonk (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Though I initially mentioned this on just a single AfD page, I have actually intended for it to bring order to a variety of situations where previously I have observed a lot of chaos. As usual, any editor is welcome to comment here, or even make intelligent changes to the project page itself. Sebwite (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll wait until you settle down on some form before attempting some comment and/or refactoring. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this essay because I disagree with the entire idea of some articles being under construction and some not. I think all articles on Wikipedia are currently "under construction", all the way up to FAs, and that they should all be subject to the same policies and guidelines. I'm not going to hold off on deleting an article on what seems to be a made-up subject just because someone claims "they will totally get to the sources sometime soon, like within a week... ish..." If it does not have a source it is not an encyclopedia article, it is original research, and we are much better off without it. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, all pages are under construction. But what this project page refers to is initial construction from when a page is brand new. Very often, it takes multiple edits to write in the initial text, and then to copy-paste the URLs used as references. Sometimes, this could take several hours to do, and may have to be done on separate days. I have created many pages, and this is the reality. This is especially the case when a smartphone is used when creating the article. Many smartphones don't have individual windows, so this requires going back and forth a lot. It is by far unfair to good-faith page creators when a page is started, then proposed for deletion by some overzealous deletionists 5 minutes later. Here, we are trying to prevent that. Sebwite (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few alternatives to what you describe that I think are preferable. These include (but are not limited to):

Userfying the first draft and copying it to the mainspace when it's ready,
Expanding an existing topic and splitting it off, or
Including a source that establishes notability on the first edit.

I don't think we should ignore a five pillars principle just because it is inconvenient. Wikipedia exists for the readers, not for the page creators. --Explodicle (T/C) 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these things are not easy when using a smartphone, which has more limited capabilities, and cannot copy-paste. Besides, what's the rush to get an article deleted? Particularly when the creator's intentions are in good faith. Sebwite (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is editing an article with a smartphone any harder when that article is userfied? The impact our work has on the reader is far more important than the limitations of your browser. I think it's worse to present something as fact without sources than it is to not present anything. You can take your time writing the article and move it to the mainspace when it meets our minimum quality requirements. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that bringing an article to the minimum quality requirements need not be the responsibility of one person. Putting the initial creation in mainspace opens it up to others to help improve on that. If it is an obviously notable topic, even without references there the very moment the first edit is completed, it still has a chance to improve. That is what the {{construction}} tag is for.

As a New page patroller myself, I am careful not to bite newbies or even those with more experience who are in the process of creating pages. There are generally only 5 reasons for which I believe in applying speedy deletion: advertising (spam, propaganda, self-promotion, etc.), attack pages, copyright violations, hoaxes, and total nonsense. And I only do when it is obvious that the page was blatantly written as such.

For articles on potentially non-notable subjects, I usually apply the PROD tag, which can be removed by anyone, thereby averting the deletion. This way, if the creator is serious about making it a good article, s/he can remove the prod tag him/herself. But if the creator abandons it, the page will automatically be deleted after 5 days.

I also will watch the page for several days thereafter for any improvements. Only if I feel there is a need for input from more people will I take it to AfD. But I won't do it for at least several days following its creation, and only if I see the creator and others have not made any effort to demonstrate suitability for inclusion. If need be, I will personally contact the creator to ascertain his/her intentions. Sebwite (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize newbies will often just write unreferenced stuff on the namespace like that. That's why I follow a similar process (but I'll usually tag an article with {{notability}} before I prod it). However, I disagree with the notion that proving notability need not be the responsibility of one person; I think the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not some random other editor at some point in the future. Just because you and I tolerate a poor editing practice does not mean it should be encouraged. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that we have a tag called {{expert}} that can be placed when an editor is aware of the truth of the information, but does not know where to find references.Sebwite (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you are publishing something you know from personal experience, but can't source it even if you try, then you are performing original research. You can throw more work on a pile that continues to grow, but the point is that you shouldn't rely on someone else to find sources that you couldn't when you started an article. They often don't exist at all, forcing a deletion process that wastes a lot of time. Besides, there are plenty of places to get help from experts without violating Wikipedia policy. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support per Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Nothing is more annoying than having an article undergoing a significant revision be deleted after a mere five day AfD. Many of our good and featured articles were stubs for even years. Volunteer work takes time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I very much agree. I personally feel that all good-faith contributions should be valued and given a chance, which is why I have made this proposal. Whenever any such articles are created, deletion should very seldom be the first resort, and should often be the last. Prior to deleting an article that was created in good faith, alternatives should be considered, either through bold changes when the solution is more simple, or through a discussion that may be held between the creator and the editor considering deletion, or on the article's discussion page if more than two people are involved. Some solutions that may work, depending on the situation are changing the writing style of the article, changing the page's charter, merging the content to another article, or transferring the content to another Wikimedia service, such as Wiktionary.

I have rarely proposed an article for deletion due to my beliefs. Usually I try to improve such a page, or else make such a suggestion.

An example is Crime scene getaway. It was originally created by a newbie under the title "Getaway car" looking like this. Soon after, it was proposed for deletion via AfD on the basis that it was a Dictionary Definition. Though some supported deletion, I supported keeping on the basis it could be improved, and I attempted to make some improvement to spare it. Someone else who supported keep commented that it was a stub, which is okay. The page survived, and I later renamed it to its current title, expanding its charter. Though I am not an expert on the topic who can complete this article, and I do not know where to find references on the topic, I marked it with the {{expert}} tag in my belief that it will eventually be improved and look much better. This is just one example I have given to demonstrate the evolution of a Wikipedia article. Sebwite (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The final subsection, entitled "Other situations", doesn't seem to actually be advocating anything that isn't already standard practice. In particular, the item referring to uncategorized and orphaned articles seems especially out of place, as those have nothing to do with deletion discussions. (Or, at least, not to my knowledge. If anyone does advocate deleting orphaned articles, I and my fellow de-orphaners shall beat them with our keyboards.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]