Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Sticky prod settled down

{{editprotected}} Text similar to that at Wikipedia:Blp#Sticky_prod should be inserted as section 3.4 after standard prod. I don't think full protection is necessary any longer either, as WP:BLP isn't protected and the change hasn't been challenged there. I believe that text similar to what is in WP:BLP enjoys consensus at this point. Gigs (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The protection actually expires soon. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll copy the current wording that's in the BLP policy. If you want it changed, let me know. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, I just noticed I was editing it on this issue before it got protected, which I'd forgotten, so ideally someone else should do it. The text I was going to add was:

Further information: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

As of April 3, 2010, a new sticky prod process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject, or it can be proposed for deletion. The prod tag may not be removed until such a source is provided, and if none is forthcoming the article may be deleted after a certain number of days. This does not affect any other deletion process.

SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was uninvolved in the discussion So I've added it in. I made two minor tweak, though I'll change it back if anyone objects. I put sticky prod in quotes, I think for obvious reasons, and I also changed "BLPs" to "biographies of living persons"; the language came from the BLP policy, where everyone already has the context as to what BLP stands for, which is not true here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Gigs (talk)

CSD policy at Village Pump

I added a discussion at VP to get consensus on additional CSD methods. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Additional_CSD_criteria to join in. Thank you. — Timneu22 · talk 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Policy observations

Statement of Issue

Imagine a relatively new editor, trying to understand the rules regarding the deletion of pages and other elements of Wikipedia. The editor will no doubt easily find the overall deletion policy, and the various XFD pages:

The editor will note some sort of structure to these pages. It appears that these pages were constructed such that each XFD page lists the specific options available for the type of item, and the overall deletion policy covers all options, along with a complete explanation of the option.

In summary form, we have a deletion policy listing and describing all options (A,B,C,....) and individual XFD pages listing the applicable options to X.

However, if you read the articles with this structure in mind, a number of questions may emerge. Most of the readers of this discussion have enough experience to answer all of these questions, but view this through the eyes of a new editor, trying to understand the overall deletion policy:

  • "Incubation" is an option listed in Deletion policy but not AFD
  • "Userfied" is an option mentioned in AFD, but not Deletion policy.
  • "Tranwikied" is in AFD, but called "Other projects" in Deletion policy
  • "Merge" and "redirect" are distinct options in Deletion policy, but seems to be combined in AFD
  • "Edit" is mentioned in Deletion policy—is this the same as "Change Scope" in SFD?
  • "Keep" is surely always an option, and it is explicitly mentioned in AFD,MFD,FFD, and RFD, but it is only implicit in TFD, CFD, SFD and Deletion policy
  • "Keep" is called "Keep" in AFD,MFD, and FFD, but "not delete" in RFD
  • "Archiving" is discussed in Deletion policy, but not listed in any XFD
  • The options in each XFD are usually mentioned in the opening paragraph, but "Merge" in SFD is further down in the body of the article

As an aside, I plan to propose guidelines covering when we userfy and incubate articles, but first, I think we should discuss a technical cleanup of the various policies first. While I am sure the veteran editors have no difficulty understanding our overall deletion policy, new editors face a small challenge when first encountering the policies. I'm not proposing any change in policy, simply editorial changes to the various pages to use consistent terms in all places.

The first question is whether it is worth the effort to copy-edit the various XFD and Deletion Policy pages. if it is, we can put together draft versions and debate the wording.

Summary of existing options by article

The following table is a quick summary,identifying which option is mentioned in which article.

Option AFD MFD TFD FFD RFD CFD SFD Deletion Policy
Delete X X X X X X X X
Keep X X   X X3      
Merge X1         X X4 X1
Redirect X1             X1
Transwiki X2              
Rename/Move X         X X  
Userfy X              
Edit             X5 X
Discussion               X
Incubation               X
Other Projects               X2
Archiving               X

1 Identified as a single option "merged or redirected" in AFD, but as two distinct options in Deletion Policy

2 Called Transwiki in AFD, "other projects" in Deletion Policy

3 Called "not deleting" in RFD

4 Included in the body of the article, but not the introduction

5 Called "Change Scope" in body of article

Goal

Note that the goal is not to ensure that there is an X is every cell, as some options should not apply to some XFD. My goal is to:

  • Ensure that the names of the options are consistent everywhere
  • Ensure that all options for all XFD are cleanly listed in the opening section of the XFD page

My hope is that we can have discussion to see if there's consensus to work on this, and then work on drafts for the intro to each XFD and a revised draft Deletion policy.--SPhilbrickT 16:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Good writeup. I'm definitely in favor of making the language consistent across the board, and generally making it easier for newcomers to access.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:AfD and mergers and the links on its talk page may be useful reading. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —In case it isn't clear from the tags, this is an essay. I wrote most of it. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It may make sense to have the level of detail progress between pages, as long as they don't contradict each other. For example, WP:Guide to deletion contains some details that aren't really discussed elsewhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion for inaccuracy?

Is it appropriate to delete an article due to a large number of errors? If so, what is the relevant threshold? What is the appropriate procedure? What should an SME do when he believes that an article has too many errors to be salvagable? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think deletion should be the first choice. Assuming that the errors are more than trivial to fix, I'd like to see us adopt a rule that we first think about userfication, if there is a single editor, or incubation in the case of multiple editors. An error-free article in main space is always the best result, but it isn't always easy to find someone to bell the cat.--SPhilbrickT 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Stubification is also an option. SilverserenC 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
If an article has a large number of errors, edit it and fix the errors. Never delete what can be fixed by editing. --Cyclopiatalk 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that if it's just a problem of errors, there's no reason to delete it, just stub (or revert) back to some largely error-free version and it can be built up again. However, even if it can be fixed by editing, there are plenty of other cases where it's acceptable to delete things. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ehm, none of the cases in WP:DEL#REASON can be dealt with editing (apart perhaps copyvios). --Cyclopiatalk 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should be more concrete. The article I'm concerned about is MVS/370, which misstates the meaning of the term and basically covers the same ground as MVS, a larger and more accurate article. To clarify, MVS/370 is a term that IBM invented to distinguish the 24-bit OS/VS2 MVS, MVS/System Extension and MVS/System Product Version 1 from the 31-bit MVS/Extended Architecture and later versions, while the article conflates it with the term MVS. I believe that in the long run MVS should describe the taxonomy of the various MVS versions and that the MVS/370 article should just be a redirect. Given that, what is the appropriate short-term action? Should I start a discussion in the talk page for MVS about merging in whatever is salvagable in MVS/370? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is an article that has huge, glaring inaccuracies that can't be fixed without a total rewrite, I would suggest stubbing it. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding speedy deletion tag

I was accidentally looking at Special:NewPages, and clicking on one of the most recent articles, I noticed it had been nominated for a speedy deletion within two minutes of its creation. Since the user was new, and I was unsure whether the article could be salvaged or not (probably not, but I'd like to check sources first), I removed the db-spam tag, but it was added back. I removed it again, and it was added again. And again. Is this ok? Isn't there some rule about CSD being only for uncontroversial — with no objection — articles? Moreover, isn't there some guideline about not tagging articles for deletion within seconds of their creation, on grounds of WP:BITE or something? Shreevatsa (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposals while creator is on vacation

Here is a concern I would like to bring up:

The way things are now, anyone can propose any article for deletion at any time, even if the creator is on vacation and has no access to the internet. When this happens, the creator of an article may not be able to have any input in the discussion.

What I propose is as follows: A registered user who is known to create and edit articles in good faith and is generally aware of policies and guidelines can place the template {{wikibreak}} on his/her user page or talk page, stating the exact dates s/he will be away. If anyone tries to propose an article s/he created for deletion during that time (by placing the prod or afd template on the page), a notice will appear when saving the changes alerting the nom that the creator is on Wikibreak, and to consider waiting before making the proposal.

There would be no actual requirement to wait on the nomination. It would only be a courtesy for the nom to wait, so the article gets a fair hearing.

As long as there is no gross violation of policy, there should be no reason to rush to have an article deleted. Sebwite (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you expecting this to apply to full AfD discussions, PRODs, or both? In the case of the latter, the article is to be restored for the asking. In the case of the former, REFUND should be able to help userify the article for work. Deletion on Wikipedia isn't permanent, and things that can be improved in good faith are routinely recreated or undeleted. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not expecting this to be a mandatory guideline, but a courtesy that others should follow. It's just like all the construction templates; no one is obligated to refrain from deleting an article with them, but it is considered common courtesy to do so. Sebwite (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You could suggest adding a check of wikibreak status to Twinkle. I see no harm in suggesting this, but avoid any wording that makes this anything other than an optional courtesy. Fences&Windows 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Does a redirect that deletes a long biographical sketch require notification?

Hi all,

There is (and has been) some discussion at WP:Band regarding notability. Basically there was a discussion as to whether individual band members should or shouldn't have their own Wikipedia page. What seemed like some fairly good ideas in the talk pages resulted in what seems to be a rather draconian rule "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band".

Personally I considered the arguments in the talk pages that suggested that a good long biography of an individual might be useful to readers and researchers, and might not necessarily be appropriate in the middle of a band article itself, to be a good argument in favor of at least some individual band member biographies.

However, whether or not you agree that their should be more leeway in the wording of this rule, the end result is that band member pages are being deleted out of hand and redirected to the band page itself, no questions asked.

The question I have is, should this type of redirect (that immediately deletes the biographical page in question) require any sort of notification or discussion prior to the immediate deletion/redirection?

Thanks,

Scratchsamples (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no notification required. It might be polite, but it's not needed. Redirects are not deletion. If you object, discuss it, boldly revert, or merge the content from the bio into the band article. That "draconian rule" is not a rule at all. A band member should have themselves received significant coverage (not just some mentions), but the idea that the coverage needs to be independent of the band is silly and I support changing the wording. Fences&Windows 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. –xenotalk 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

An administrator just told me, if I understand correctly, that if an article is deleted, all material and edits must be destroyed. None of it can be used in any other article. For example, if an article about India's bid to be on the Security Council of the UN is deleted, there must be NO mention of it in any other article. This seems strange and wrong to me.

This appeared on BlackKite's page...

I see you commented about the AFD on Moses. One possible problem is that there is not clear instructions about the aftermath of AFDs. Is it "all edits must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. Is it "some material must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. It is "the material contained does not qualify for a separate article".

......

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

END OF EXCERPT

Is this true? If so, the deletion policy should be modified. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there are cases where material may not be suitable for a freestanding article, but portions of the material may be usable in other articles, and a "delete" outcome for an AFD does not necessarily mean that none of the material in the article can be reused. However, a lot would depend on why the article was deleted. If there are no reliable sources for the content, then it would not be appropriate to reintroduce it elsewhere. But if the article was deleted as an inappropriate content fork, or as lacking sufficient independent notability despite having some sources (e.g., non-independent sources such as press releases, or some independent source but not enough coverage to establish notablity), then the material could potentially be reused even if the formal outcome of the AFD wasn't "merge". (No specific comment on the specific situation that you mention, since I don't know the details.) --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue with deleting content and then reusing it via copy/paste has primarily to do with licensing under the GFDL: attribution must be provided, and if the edit history of an article is wiped out (unlike, say, if it were simply redirected and protected as might happen during a merge) the most straightforward way to provide such attribution will have been removed. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In general if there is something useful in the article that is more than a sentence or so and you want it in another article, just ask the closing admin to undelete the article and redirect it. Then when you cut-and-paste from the "deleted" article you can, in the edit summary, indicate where the material came from. IF the closing admin will not do so for whatever reason and the text you want to copy and paste is A) clearly relevant to the new article and B) non-trivial to just reword, take it to WP:DRV and ask for a "history only" undelete (basically the redirect thing) for purposes of meeting the GFDL. Hobit (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Page

I would like to flag the following page for deletion as it does not meet notability standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Lopresti But I do not know how to flag for deletion.

Thank you. Slyforeman (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

Please note: This thread was initially posted on WP: AN and subsequently moved here. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose a change to XFD policy, which would apply across all namespaces.

Simply, if a piece of content (article, redirect, image, etc.) survives a deletion discussion, the user who nominated it before cannot nominate it again, ever (no statute of limitations). That doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion a second time; it just can't be nominated again by the same person who nominated it before. The purpose of this proposed policy is to prevent users from POINTILY attempting to get content they don't like deleted by nominating it again and again.

Failure to follow this policy will lead to warnings (if the user was not warned previously) or blocks (if the user has been warned before about breaking this rule).

The inspiration for this proposed rule is this discussion; a user has recently re-submitted a case to AFD even though the redirect survived a previous AFD that was also initiated by him. This same user has been found guilty of edit-warring on this and similar topics in the past. I think there should be a way of preventing things like this from happening again. Please note that this policy will not apply retroactively (so Tallicfan20 will not be disciplined no matter what happens).

Supports and opposes can go below. If you feel that the proposal should be modified (for example, if you feel there should be a statute of limitations), you can express that viewpoint too. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to hold a discussion of such a proposal. In any case, we propose policy changes by discussion and consensus, not by jumping into a straight up-or-down vote without discussion of the alternatives. In any case, we aren't going to change policy based on on person's dislike of one action, and even without that circumstance you would never get consensus for such a policy. There are a number of other things wrong with this proposal, but in the interest of brevity I'll stick to the major ones above. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I was going to disagree, but on reflection gavia's got it right. Wrong place. It might be worth noting why I'd have disagreed:
1/ We tend not to do "never" as a community. 2/ There are cases where the nomination was appropriate but the AFD was during the ongoing event or communal sentiment would not have allowed deletion at the time, or it was "no consensus", so the article was kept, but after some weeks or months was then closed as delete. Users who make pointy repeat nominations with no new grounds tend to be pretty obvious and I wouldn't have a problem with the AFD being closed as "speedy keep" and the user warned for WP:DISRUPT or WP:POINT if that were the case. Notice the replies in the example XFD were all "keep". Is a disruptive user going to be able to do it 3 times in a row, same user? Very unlikely. So I would not amend policy for an edge case like this. Better to rely on admins to figure it out and on user observations, at the time. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't 3RR a "never" policy, though? What I'm proposing is not all that different from 3RR, in that it's intended to prevent people from using Wikipedia as a battleground. Besides, I'm not suggesting that articles that survive AFD can never be nominated again, I'm just saying I don't think the same user should be able to nominate them a second time. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if this is the wrong place to hold such a discussion, where is the right place? I don't know yet. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This would presumably be a change to deletion policy. Try Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will move this discussion there. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. It's been moved to the deletion policy talk page. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The below line marks the end of the discussion that started on WP:AN.


I would suggest that if an AFD is a no-consensus, there should be no plausible resaon why that article should not be re-listed by the same person, but if it is a Keep, then perhaps you have a point.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. When I said "survived" an AFD, I guess I was referring mainly to keep outcomes. Perhaps no-consensus outcomes should be exempt from this proposal. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with this for Keep outcomes. It makes a certain amount of sense. SilverserenC 04:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Scenario: I nominate an article for deletion, it's kept on the grounds that such and such proves it's notable. Later I discover that 'such and such' was clearly fraudulent. I can't see any grounds for denying me the right to renominate. We already have WP:POINT aimed at problems such as this one. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like an answer in search of a problem. If there were any editors that reglarly abuse the AfD nomination process like this they would surely be called out on it by the community. Most cases of renominations are not cases of abuse since they are done in good-faith with knowledge of the appropriate deletion arguments. I've even seen nominators go as far as to explicitly address the issue stating why they are renominating it (lack of sources, change in consensus, hasn't been improved, etc.) for the sake of transparancy. My take is that the system we have is working just fine. If any individual editors abuse it to try and sneak around consensus then the problem lies with the individual editors and not the system. ThemFromSpace 05:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think multiple nominations of the same article (not necessarily by the same person) can indeed be a problem, if only because the article has to be defaced by a "This article has been proposed for deletion" template for so many days (I think in some cases this is what motivates the proposer - if you can't get rid of it, then at least make it look bad). Of course, there's also the wasted time discussing the same thing over and over again, as with all perennial proposals. I suggest, as an alternative proposal, that before nominating an article for deletion for a second or subsequent time, you should first have to get a consensus at (something analogous to) deletion review that the previous result was dodgy, and only then be allowed to template the article and start a new AfD process.--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So instead of the ugly AfD banner you get the ugly DRV banner? Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well no, there wouldn't be such a banner (or there could be one on the talk page only).--Kotniski (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we give an example where this policy would solve a problem which could not already be solved by our existing policies or social norms? I understand that examples listed above exist, but most of them seem to be "User X nominated this article again right after it was kept and [insert proscribed action here]", where a big part of the problem was the related proscribed action, not the second nomination. More to the point, this is similar to requests that we put a cooldown period on AfDs in general; that AfD results should "hold" for a period of (just throwing a number out) 7 days. That's all well and good, but repeat nominations within a rapid period of time tend to be overwhelmingly rejected, without the need for a policy which adds to an already overlong deletion process page. And what happens if I nominate an article again after 9 months? Maybe the result was no consensus 9 months ago w/ a strong feeling in the discussion that sources would soon appear for the subject and they haven't appeared? In that case, a renomination might be warranted, but would be closed down due to this policy. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I was coming here to oppose this, but after thinking about it for a minute I actually agree with it. This would go far in preventing IDONTLIKEIT and pointy AfDs filed by the same people over and over again when they don't get what they want. I would also suggest including a clause about meatpuppetry in the same case: as in getting others to file continued AfDs in the same manner as an end around this "1 strike you're out" policy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly, disruptive or bad-faith re-nominations are already covered by WP:POINT, WP:DICK, and elsewhere, so it's hardly necessary to create new policy to deal with this very narrow and uncommon situation. Secondly, consensus can and often does change, many articles kept in 2005 or 2006 are clearly unsuitable now (often for verifiability reasons), which is why re-nominations often succeed--see also WP:CCC. Thirdly, telling an editor "You can't do that, EVER, no matter how good your reasons are" (unless of course you create a sockpuppet) just isn't how Wikipedia works. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support a statement to the effect of "it is rarely wise to..." or some such with a solid link to WP:POINT, but I agree there are times when it _is_ reasonable. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support some version of this. Maybe we need less invasive rules? Something along the lines of allowing an early close unless the AfD is clearly trending towards deletion, perhaps. Consensus CAN chance (see the deletion discussions for WP:PLAXICO, for instance), but there should be a presumption that if something has already survived a deletion discussion, it should not have to bear a banner of shame for seven days just because one or a handful of editors want it. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Solution in search of a problem. We are hardly being overrun by repetitive XfDs from the same user, and disruptive AfDs can be, and are, speedy closed already, and if the originator repeats the behavior then they can be blocked easily. A blanket prohibition on renomination by the same user is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I was about to write exactly what Timotheus wrote above: Solution in search of a problem. We have rules that can deal with problem nominations already, and despite a few off cases, this is not a widespread issue. The fact that the original proposal is to never have this pox expire on the nom doesn't lend confidence to its practicality either. Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - The point is not only bad-faith re-nomination, the point is avoiding bombing an article with repeated AfD until the consensus gets it to be deleted. We ask a lot of requirements to resurrect articles deleted by AfD: we should ask a lot to retry to delete stuff which consensus judged OK as well. The situation as it is now it is drastically asymmetric. If consensus really changes and the article oughts to be deleted, no doubt some other user will renominate it -the previous nominator can instead contribute, for example, by bringing it to the attention of a Wikiproject for re-assessment in this respect. --Cyclopiatalk 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I recently came across a block of copyrighted text in an apparently otherwise fine article and per this policy, I've been substing the copyvio template to blank the entire page. I've been doing this for years, and noone has implied that I was doing something wrong. The policy says: "For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion...". Since the whole page isn't a violation, I ignored that line. The previous line says: "For other pages, edit the page to replace its entire content with { {subst:copyvio|url=address of copied material} }." Since that line does not mention "whole page" I figured that was the step to follow for partial violations. If in fact, the substing of the copyvio template should not be done for partial copyright violations, I suggest the wording of the 2nd line I quoted be changed to reflect that.--Rockfang (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge you did right -can you point us to the specific case you talk about? --Cyclopiatalk 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I just tweaked the line quoted above so that it agrees with WP:CP#Instructions, which essentially says "fix it if you can, tag it if you can't."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
@Cyclopia: This discusses what happened with this article.--Rockfang (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, if it was just a small paragraph in a long article, fixing it is the way to go -usually the violations I've met were more substantial, so that you couldn't just cut away the offending paragraph and have a stand-alone article as the result. --Cyclopiatalk 18:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You can also replace just the problem section with {{subst:copyvio}} at the start of it and end the blanking before the next section with a </div> tag, but I don't know if that's on any instructions anywhere and I'm not quite coherent enough at the moment to search for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion criteria for stand-alone lists

It is not clear to me how the usual deletion criteria should be applied to stand-alone list articles, and after having read up some old AfDs on various "List of Xs" articles, it struck me that many discussants were struggling with the criteria. For example, unless a list is simply copied from another source, it can always be labelled "original research". The content guideline WP:STANDALONE states: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem", and: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic". Particularly the latter observation, although unassailably true, is not overly helpful in providing guidance in the matter.

The starting point for this was the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies. I see rhyme nor reason in the discussions why List of fictional weasels was killed but List of fictional raccoons survived, the latter even per WP:SNOW. For reference, here is a list of "Xs" such that "List of fictional Xs" did survive at least its last AfD discussion (or in some cases was recreated afterwards): actors · anti-heroes · archenemies · astronauts · Australian politicians · beverages · birds of prey · books · books within the Harry Potter series · brands · British monarchs · British Prime Ministers · businesses · butlers · cats · characters on the autistic spectrum · characters who can move at superhuman speeds · characters with heterochromia · characters with telekinesis · characters within The Simpsons · city-states in literature · clergy and religious figures · companies · computers · counties · countries · deer and moose · detectives for younger readers · diseases · doctors · dogs · guidebooks · hackers · institutions · Jewish LGBT characters · Jews · journalists · magic users · martial arts · media · monkeys · musical works · pandas · penguins · physicians · places in G.I. Joe · places on The Simpsons · police detectives · politicians · postal employees · psychiatrists · raccoons · radio stations · Romans · Scots · spacecraft · spaceships · swords · television shows · television stations · terrorists · toxins · turtles · United States presidential candidates · United States Presidents · universes · vampires · vehicles · Vice Presidents of the United States · witches · worms.

My question: should we have clearer AfD criteria for stand-alone lists (not only for fictional entities), and if so, how do we get around to formulating them?  --Lambiam 20:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • It would be nice to have something resembling a policy on such lists but I doubt we ever will, it's too much an 'I know it when I see it' situation that couldn't really be summarised by policy. Some lists are undeniably useful, others are silly, attract spam and vandalism, and even make Wikipedia a target of ridicule. But how to sort out the distinction in a paragraph or two? I have no idea. I think a better way to go is simply encourage lists to be cleaned up into articles. For example, the fictional raccoon list could be split into a category and a scholarly text article on the use of raccoons in mythology and fiction, covering the Japanese tanuki legends, the trope of raccoons as food-stealers and tricksters, and so on. Writing it as text instead of a bulleted list is both more appropriate for an encyclopedia as well as helping to discourage drive-by spam like "A raccoon appeared on a wall poster in today's strip of My Crappy Webcomic!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Only one day after the above was written, a discussion about this was initiated at the Village pump (policy), from where it was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists.  --Lambiam 07:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_39&oldid=1146345489"