Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to add QD G13 & G14[change source]

Consensus was to not add, as QD's should be article based, not user-based.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi everyone. I would like to suggest to add a new QD reason, G13, or Page is Disruptive. This would be placed on articles that are not vandalism, however, they are blatantly disruptive and the page has no reason to stay up.

I would also like to propose QDG14, or Long Term Abuse. Again, this would be where the page is not vandalism itself, however, the user shows a pattern of creating pages like this that are disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnafpuppetmaster (talkcontribs) 18:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support[change source]

Support The idea for QD G14, however I Oppose the idea of QD G13. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose[change source]

@つがる: What custom criteria are you talking about? QDs happen only for the specific reasons listed in the policy. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Auntof6 Twinkle already has a custom QD option, It is very much valid for the listed reason proposed above, to just be inputted into the custom reasoning, as such there is no need for this new QD criteria. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't remember seeing that option, but we're pretty strict about not doing QDs for any but the official reasons. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's valid enough, then I don't see why It can't be done --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only "valid" QD reasons are those explicitly provided for in policy. If there is a need to type in a custom QD reason, then either (1) you need to find out what the proper QD criterion is, or (2) the page is not eligible for QD. Chenzw  Talk  01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I see your point. Then, why is there a 'custom QD' box in TW then. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The custom field is so you can expand on why you believe the page meets a given QD, not just to delete for your own reason. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Way too generic and subjective for a QD. The QDs we have mostly already cover stuff like this. Likely if its disruptive its vandalism, if its not an obvious QD then it goes to Rfd where subjective things go for deletion. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Qdick deletion criteria should only be about the article, and its content. Suppose there's someone who is known for vandalism, or as a long-term problem maker, and that person creates an article, which perhaps isn't perfect, but wihich can be changed to a valid stub with 5-10 min work. I would hate to have to delete the article, when spending the 5-10 mins can fix it. For example: en:Slutwalk (no we don't have it yet) is a term for women who organize protests against victim blaming in relation to sex-related crimes (such as rape). Would creating an article on the topic, in this Wikipedia be disruptive? - What if the person I mentioned before created such an article? - In short: the QD criteria we have cover the two cases for everyday use, and qd criteria should be about the article, and its content, and not about the author. In that respect I can only oppose adding the two criteria.--Eptalon (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose because the vagueness of the wording leaves an opening for abuse and because the problem it is meant to address is already covered by other deletion criteria. People who propose policy with good intentions sometimes have trouble imagining what someone with bad intentions could do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[change source]

@Auntof6: I've gone ahead and moved it, and put a notice to discuss it where it was. rollingbarrels (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fnafpuppetmaster: Perfect, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: "Page is disruptive" seems ambiguious. What exactly would the criteria be for it to apply? --IWI (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IWI: This would be for articles that are not disruptive to project by itself, but the way the user is creating the page is, and the content should not be left up. rollingbarrels (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that is the kind of thing that should be discussed. We've had proposals for new QD options that were more clearcut than this, and they were rejected. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I think it's more subjective than ambiguous. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with IWI. "Page is disruptive" and "Long term abuse" are too ambiguous. On other Wikis, I've seen people use vague rules like that as an excuse to declare disruptive and delete pages they didn't like, including essays and marked drafts still in the writer's userspace. (And no, I wasn't the only person who had stuff deleted.) I've never seen anyone on Simple act like that, but the rule will be there for many years, when new people will have cycled in. Fnaf, I figure you've seen something that makes you think a quick deletion would save everyone time and work, and you must have seen it many times, but I think to be a rule we'd have to be very, very clear about what that something is. Do you feel okay about telling us some specifics? Maybe we could work out a good rule. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started this proposal because of the user who created a bunch of pages that were duplicates of another page on simple. I wasn't really sure which one they would have fit under, so I decided to propose an additional criteria in the case that it happens again. rollingbarrels (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then maybe "identical duplicate of recently deleted page" would do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Darkfrog24, that would likely be QDA4, which does not apply to Quick Deletes. rollingbarrels (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If its a duplicate just redirect it. If the name doesn't match the content it would be a QD for vandalism. There are a number of QDs this would already fall under. -Djsasso (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to add T3[change source]

Given that we have more and more unused templates, full of red links, and the results of RFDs tend to delete, I propose to add one more CSD criterion: T3: Templates containing all red links and are unused.

Ideas are welcomed, thanks for considering.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I think this was proposed before (by me). An issue raised at that time was that a template creator might need time to turn red links blue and put the template to use, so an additional requirement might need to be that the template needed to be a certain number of days old. However, it was then pointed out that having to wait to QD might not be considered quick. That proposal was rejected (though I'm not saying this one will be). --Auntof6 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why not we add in 7 days old untouched templates, if let say the creator created today, I RFDed, 7 days later, still the same, defaults to delete, so if the creator left it untouched after 7 days, we can be sure if at the very point of creation we RFDed, it will never survive the RFD. Although I hate to striaght RFD pages, that is a little harsh on creators, but it typically happen this way so 7 days will be a good yardstick. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To me, if we’re doing that, we might as well RfD. If we are going to include a new "quick" deletion criteria, it should be deleted straight away if unused. Otherwise, I don’t see the reason to even introduce it if 7 days would have to be waited. I would support such a criteria to avoid unnecessary RfDs, but only if the deletion would be truly quick. --IWI (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, let's try not include 7 days then. Proposal is per listed in the 1st go. Let's see whether we have consensus this time, per consensus can change? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. With RfD running to 52 items, we need to make more use of QDs. Seven days idea is also OK, but not essential. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose We already have a problem with people jumping on things to delete them too quick. We have to give time to allow the articles to be created. Don't forget our Rfd process also serves as prod here so anything that goes there gets deleted automatically after 7 days unless objected to. -Djsasso (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Djsasso: In practice I see many admins extending dates on RfDs with no votes, so clearly this is not the case, at least not for a majority of admins. --IWI (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I am not sure why that has suddenly started happening. It is new within the last year. I believe Eptalon started doing it and then some others started following. But there has been community discussion around this multiple times. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that with our small community, relisting RfDs is not really helpful. If nobody comments after a week it should be taken as no objections. If someone wanted it kept, they probably would have commented. --IWI (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Djsasso. Chenzw  Talk  17:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minimum-wait for renominatioonm of a kept RfD?[change source]

Hello all, we are currently at over 50 open RfDs. What I would therefore like to propose is the following:

  • To renominate a kept RfD, a minimum waiting-period of 3 months or a signifgicant change in article content is required.

Re-running an article at RfD that was closed earlier, is likely to get the same result, unless the article changed significantly. Thoughts?--Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Is that seriously a cause of the long queue? I would think an underuse of QD is a cause. Together, of course, with lots of kids being cooped up at home because of covid! Also, what percent of RfDs is caused by renoms? Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We actually have the opposite problem, of QDs being used too much. A4 is often used when it is not applicable for example. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would say to reduced to 1 month because it may be long time for that. Only 1 month is enough.KP (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see how this is related to the amount of RfDs. Only 2 that I can see were previously nominated. --IWI (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am not sure having a lot of Rfds is a problem. If anything it shows that things are working as they should. There is always going to be an ebb and flow where sometimes there are a lot and sometimes there are not many. Don't forget our Rfd also works as prod where any articles nominated if they don't have an oppose automatically get deleted after 7 days so it doesn't actually end up using any extra editor time to have a bunch up there unless they are all controversial nominations. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Djsasso: With 50 RfDs now open, it might be helpful to leave a message on WP:AN reminding admins of this. We could theoretically be relisting them repeatedly forever. --IWI (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose based on the fact that certain things can be missed in previous RfDs, regardless of a change in page content. An example of this has happened recently here where new information changed people's opinion. --IWI (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You mean we are currently discussing to what extent a contestant of 'Miss Universe' is notable. There was no final contest in 2020, so there are many contestants, who each won the 'national contest'. And yes, we all know like many contests, this is about finding a pretty girl that gets a contract for advertising, for a year. I mean, en:Nathan Söderblom is also just known for one event. In my opinion the issue here is also tto accept a decision of the closing admin; unless the article changed significatly, or a long time passed, we shouldnt renominate articles. If I think an article should be deleted, and the closing admin decides otherwise, re-nominating it until it is shouldn't be an option (unless ofc a long time passed, or the article changed significantly). I might not agree with the closing admin's decision, but I accept it.--Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not about accepting the cloising admin's decision. I totally accept the closure of the previous RfD where consensus was clear at the time, but bringing certain previously unmentioned aspects to light have changed the opinion of three people (me included) from the original RfD in this case. From this standpoint, giving a fixed period of time where one cannot RfD a page does not seem appropriate. Sure, bringing a page for RfD a short time after with nothing extra brought to the discussion should not be done, but a fixed time is not the way to go about that. --IWI (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually putting aside PAID editing (which is hard to proof and hard to delete), (and I will recommend something like COIN if we want to say about PAID), the articles all suffer from BIO1E as the actual Miss Universe isn't held due to COVID, if they had been held, it will be easily 2 events (local / international) events. But to be honest, the BIO1E argument isn't that solid as it should be after some point in time we examine the article (after all the dust have settled), this is still in the midst, likely they will be held this year. So I will think those articles are a case of created too soon, and if there is a draftspace, I will gladly say move to draft. My 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To me, they can only be considered notable in the international competition if they win. Otherwise, they are very unlikely to receive enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, regardless of how many pageants they took part in. Ultimately, all of these guidelines, including BIO1E, are simply estimations we use to guess whether a person will meet GNG. This isn't a discussion that should take place here in any case. In relation to the proposal, I oppose a fixed time period. --IWI (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Camouflaged Mirage: To make what I said above a little clearer, simply taking part in the international Miss Universe competition does not make someone notable unless they win it, so BIO1E would still apply to all of these winners of local competitions unless they go on to win the international one. This is because if they do not win, they have only played a minor role in the event (as BIO1E) states "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate". Otherwise, there will probably not be enough coverage to meet GNG. --IWI (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment Let take it step by step, 1st the miss universe competition can be one additional source of notable event, I really don't know why you keep on discount the local selection pageants, some of them may be notable events. Secondary, we need to take more care in a blanket, take part in Miss Universe = non notable, as some of them might have others event / activities. Note notablity is not based on sourcing or content in the article, each subject should be ideally evaluated one by one, who knows one of them might write a book that qualifies them as NAUTHOR, another might act in films which make them okay per NCREATIVE and another might be a prof which fulfills NPROF. Such blanket statements is unsafe at times. I am not saying this batch some meets, but there is always a possiblity. Lastly, there are some other events like Olympics /Asian Games / South East Asian Games which NATHELETE seems to suggest medal winners have their page, is it because there isn't a subject notablity guideline for pageants, then it should be time for us to discuss one if needed to have some consistency. Do note that some winners may have greater fame in their home countries than the events themselves too, hence, per BIO1E, we should also be careful that for such subjects, it may be better to write about them not the competion only, and some winners / participants may be given civilian awards etc. All in all, my approach will be all these since the international event is not held due to COVID, we should take it that we don't know who wins, and hence, a better reason for deletion will be too soon / etc rather than the blanket assertion in some sense, we simply just don't know who will be notable in time or not in some sense (based on the competition placing) - but some might be notable now, each need individual research. I voted keep for one of them as I think it's ok, feel free to defer though. Nice to discuss this out :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes you are right, I should correct myself. Of course, any one of these could be notable for another reason, but taking part in the Miss Universe doesn't inherently mean they are notable in of itself. Also, the local events are notable, but most of their winners do not pass GNG for coverage about them. Yes, it is very good to have a discussion to come to an agreement :). --IWI (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: I am thinking something along the lines of zhwp deletion policy here, briefly and 3rd paragraph "If a page had been kept in RFD, or restored in deletion review, the same page shouldn't be renominated for deletion for the same reason. Unless 6 months had passed, if any RFD is nominated with the same reason, and the page didn't have any significant changes or cirumstances didn't change, it can be speedy keep. If it's no consensus, then a resonable wait period should be imposed before renomination. enwp seems to have en:WP:NPASR, these are things we can follow.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My page[change source]

For Anjum Lucknowi Category:Kenya Websites and my other pages un delete them I also sometimes edit pages to make them out of the deletion criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysses 0G (talkcontribs) 18:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages directly copied from other Wikipedias[change source]

Why is "Pages directly copied from other Wikipedias" listed under "Discussed deletion"? This would either be A3 or A5. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Sometimes, editors copy the page from another Wikipedia (usually enwp), and then they work on it to make it easier to understand. Depending on the page, the language may already be suitable for our wiki, so it won't fall under the 'copied from somewhere else, not simpilfied' QD criterion. Also, in some cases we might want to discuss the issue. --Eptalon (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Wouldn't that not be "directly copied"? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • We live in the age of sharing, the cotent of Wikipedia is under a free license. As I pointed our, the text may be sipmle enough, and just need attribution on the talk page....--Eptalon (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • A3 requires it to be directly copied and complex. Not just directly copied. A5 of course would require it to be in a language other than English. -Djsasso (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think this should be removed, as it is misleading. An editor may see a complex page directly copied from enwiki, then look at this policy, and then see that "pages directly copied from other Wikipedias" is listed as a reason for RfD. When instead, they should be using QD. I think this line should be replaced with something like "articles that claim to be notable, but do not meet WP:Notability" because that is the most common reason for RfDs. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of U2[change source]

Can U2 be used for user talk pages of accounts that have been hidden by stewards? (i.e. when you go to contributions, and the account is "not registered" but there are contributions there) --Ferien (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk pages can't be deleted unless its purely vandalism. The user existed at one point so the talk page is valid. Most often that I see this case when the editor is very old, there is a point where a lot of stuff was converted from the previous wikisoftware I think it was so users that do exist don't show as registered. I forget all the details about how it all worked, but I had to go around undeleting a bunch of stuff in the last year or so where people thought the users didn't exist but they actually did and incorrectly went around deleting stuff. However, they did exist, their accounts were just very old. Djsasso (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional reason for revdel?[change source]

Because it has happened recently (the change has been revdel'd already), should it be clarified that addition of bad or offending images as vandalism could be grounds for revision deletion? (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might be able to argue that could fall under RD3. I don't think we need one for images. The images all exist on commons, if they should be deleted I feel like it should be dealt with at the source on commons. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There has recently been vandalism on WP:AN with bad images. It has been revdel'd already (and I already sent a request to have an admin add the images to the bad image list) but I feel as though that criteria should also clarify that something like that would fall under RD3. (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would already be RD3. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page has now been fixed. Now remove the delete tag on it[change source]

Dear Team, This page has now been fixed. Now remove the delete tag on it. Refugiaa5 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This situation has been concluded. The page was deleted as a recreation of deleted material on 19 January 2022. --Creol(talk) 22:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spam on user pages[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We frequently deal with spam on user pages that are promoting people but cannot technically be quickly deleted as G11 specifically doesn't include people. Going to RfD over a user page feels pointless to me and I believe it gives more attention to the article in those 7 days or more when the RfD is running, but leaving userpage spam from a globally locked sockpuppet also feels wrong, so a change in policy is necessary as these pages are created quite frequently. I see a few solutions here

  • Change G11 - G11 currently covers pages that were only created only to say good things about a company, item, group or service - people aren't included, so we could adjust that to pages that were created only to say good things about a person, company, item, group or service
  • Add U3 - U3 would be based on enwiki's U5, although it obviously could be adjusted if we feel it's appropriate. The idea of U5 on enwiki is that it is blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. I feel this could work ok here, but it is slightly broad which may be a problem.
  • Continue how things are or another solution - or maybe I'm missing something and our current deletion policy covers these spammy user pages, or there's a better solution.

Thank you in advance for your time, --Ferien (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. This would be some useful additions, especially in countering spam. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Derpdart56, which idea would you support? Maybe I should have made myself clearer, I've thought of two solutions and we'd pick either one or the other (unless someone else thinks of a better solution): changing G11 or adding U3 :) --Ferien (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both. These solutions are not mutually exclusive, so we could implement both. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would guess so, but if we change G11 and add U3, we don't get many webhost-like user pages like enwiki does. It could be done, certainly, but just feels a bit unnecessary to have both. --Ferien (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but I think it'd be a safer bet just to have both. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there a reason G11 doesn't specifically include people? I'd have to go back and try to find previous discussion on this. I don't see why we shouldn't add people to the criteria, but maybe there is a good reason that I'm overlooking. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most of the deletion policy traces back to a BOLD expansion undertaken by TBC in 2006, using a simplified version of enWP's CSD. There was no discussion that I could find, either before or after said expansion, and no one objected back then. Obviously now the wiki is much larger and more complicated now, but this seems like a prudent addition. Griff (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support expanding G11. Advertising is advertising, no matter the location or subject. Although, a single person can be a company or an item. Impersonal on that second one, but technically true. Many admin already interpret G11 to include people so this would just be making it more blatant for the others. --Creol(talk) 03:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose U3/5 Most QDs in the user space should only be dealing with legal or technical issues. For the most part, stay out unless you have to. Not because you feel like it. If it is not breaking the law or the system, Request its deletion. If usage must be dictated to people, let consensus decide, not the opinion of a single person. --Creol(talk) 03:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support G11 changes. People can be promoted, and I don't see why we shouldn't include this in our G11.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 09:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support for U3, it would be easier dealing with userpage spam and promotion. Deppty (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support G11 - it gives more latitude than a specific U3, although I personally would prefer we just say "pages that were created only to say good things about the subject being written about" .. why limit ourselves unnecessarily. Promotion is promotion, no matter what its about. Griff (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the proposal; change to G11 preferred. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support changing G11. I think that this change will greatly benefit us spam fighters, even today I wasn't able to get an advertising page quickly deleted with this rationale. Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 13:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: I have looked at it briefly, and I think, adapting G11 would likely be the easiest solution. Something like ...about a person, company, item, group or service would probably fit the bill best.--Eptalon (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

A3: copied articles[change source]

As it is written, "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying complex text", the requirements are that it has been copied and pasted and no simplification has been done. This is not how it is being enforced. In some cases, no simplification is done because it is not needed. This is a perfectly acceptable stance but the wording should be changed to convey this. As such, I would suggest changing the statement above to:

"Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia and contains complex text that has not been simplified."

The difference is both subtle and drastic. It no longer say simplification must be done only that it needs to be done and wasn't. This is how the rule is being interpreted so it should be what it says.

Basic checklist for using this justification to quick delete:

  1. Was the article copied and pasted from another wikipedia?
  2. Is the article in need of simplification?
  3. Has simplification been attempted and, if so ,has an acceptable -personal call- attempt been made?

This does leave it up to admin discretion as to what amount of complex text is enough to warrant accepting a quick deletion under this rule, but enforcement of policy is commonly at their discretion so this is no different. The rest of the statement does give a way out for not accepting it if they feel simplification has at least been attempted but was not sufficient. It is up to the admin to decide if simplification is needed to a degree that the article should be deleted rather than just tagged. Pure Evil (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pure Evil: I don't see the difference. We basically do follow the three items you list. The current wording says "without simplifying complex text". If there is no complex text to simplify, then of course none would be done -- none can be done. If it just said "without simplifying text", then I would see the issue. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy says that simplification was not done. This is not what how the rule is being used. As it is written, if simplification of complex text was not done, then the rule can apply. The fact that there was no complex text to simplify has no bearing on that. All that matters is that no simplification was done. The change is that the reasoning only applies if simplification was needed and not done. If there is no complex text, this reasoning does not apply. This is how the policy is being enforced but not what the policy states. The wording change reflects the intent of the policy and how it is being used. The change does not affect how the policy is being enforced. It only ensures the wording and the accepted meaning are the same thing. Currently, they are not. A3 can be used to delete an article as long as no simplification of complex text was done whether it was needed or not. This changes that to make it only apply if the simplification is needed as this is how the policy is interpreted and enforced. Pure Evil (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the policy is written, the checklist would be:
  1. Was the article copied and pasted from another wikipedia?
  2. Was simplification of complex text done?
Done, needed is not stated. "without simplifying complex text" does not care if it was not needed, only that it did not happen. Pure Evil (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That part of the sentence says exactly what you are asking for. It doesn't say without simplifying simple text, it says without simplifying complex text. So it is saying no simplifying of specifically complex text. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G10 - Attack pages[change source]

Sadly, as currently written, this part of the policy is being denied evidently because the target of the attack is not singular.

As written :"Pages that were only created to insult a person or thing (such as "John Q. Doe is dumb")" is being interpreted that it only applies to a specific person or object and not a group. "Tim is stupid" is a valid target but "Chinese people are stupid" is not. Racism is perfectly acceptable by this rule as it is an attack on a group and not on an individual. The wording needs to be changed so that anything that is seen as an attack on anything can fall under this rule given admin opinion. The simplest change in my opinion would be from "a person or thing" to "something" A person, a thing, a group. a religion, a nation, a people, an idea, anything that can be said to be "Something". Thing should already include "something" but it is not being seen that way so the rule needs to be expanding to include people and things and not just person and thing. Odd that people are anal about the wording on this rule and nonchalant when it comes to the wording of other rules. Pure Evil (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This rule does not mean that racism is acceptable, just that the rule can't be used to delete the particular kind of thing you're talking about.
As for the specific changes suggested, QD option descriptions are written to be very specific: "something" is very non-specific, so I would not support using that term. We could change the rule to say "a person, group of people, or thing". We could also change it to use the same wording as option A4: "people, groups, companies, products, services or websites".
And I think it would be much more productive if we just discuss the change and not the people we may have disagreements with. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By your own choice, that is not viable. It only protects a singular thing and you stated that means it can not apply to any plaural things, There is also the fact of being a concept, idea or say religion. A religion is a system of thought, not a thing. If the rule were as you suggest, to say "Christianity is an idiotic concept that screws over the weak minded and the ignorant" is not an attack that can be quick deleted. If the attack is not aimed at the people, then it is protected from quick deletion no matter how offensive it is to those same people. A person could attack homosexuality all they want but if they do not aim at people it is totally defended. Bigotted ideals are fine if they are about the concept and not the person. "Mixed race relations are a blight on society and any steps to prevent such atrocities should be taken at any cost." Abhorrent thought but perfectly acceptable under the rules as such since it does not attack a person. It just condemns the situation and suggest that death should be the result. Death of who? no one in particular. Certainly not a person or group as that would be actionable. Just that the concept should lead to death. In reality, if any of this actually happened, I am pretty certain more than one admin would make the call to do what is right and remove such trash. There is a pretty good chance that oversight would even be involved. This defense of racist vandalism based on something being plural while the rule only applies to singular entities of specific classes is extremely short sighted and needs to be corrected.
And people wonder why I need to step away from this place for a month at a time. Its inane happenings like this that drove me away last month. Some things never seem to change. Pure Evil (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Chinese people are stupid" would not be perfectly acceptable by this rule. It just is not mentioned in this rule specifically. Racism on Wikipedia is vandalism and can be deleted as such using G3. And perhaps you would like to read Auntof6's message in further detail instead of accusing them of defending racist vandalism. --Ferien (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Expand QD A4 to cover ideas[change source]

There have been some instances of non-notable idea based pages that get stuck in the RFD queue when they could fall under a non-notability clause such as A4 if it covered ideas and ideologies. I am proposing the expansion of A4 to cover ideas, religions and general schools of thought that aren't notable enough to be covered in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Derpdart56 (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't think keeping an article about an idea is something that should be decided on quickly. Ideas are not concrete things like the other subjects we can currently delete via A4, so it's harder to evaluate their notability. If RFDs for ideas are getting "stuck", that's an indication of how hard they are to evaluate. I also think that the kind of things included in A4 should be kept to a minimum. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose A4 is already used too often and if anything, its scope should be reduced, not expanded. --Ferien (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about G5 being brought back[change source]

Please see Wikipedia:Simple talk#That talk we should have for the proposal. --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC: G5 Quick Deletion criteria[change source]

The consensus here is to reinstate Quick Deletion criteria G5 with the wording presented in the first of the two options. From this point forth, G5 as worded in the first option, is part of the Deletion policy of the Simple English Wikipedia.--BRP ever 01:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello everyone. This is an RFC to implement a new quick deletion criteria for the deletion of pages created by blocked/banned users. This RFC is the result of a prior discussion, where the community showed interest in reinstating this criteria.

Years ago, G5 used to be a QD criteria on the Simple English Wikipedia. However, it was removed in 2008, when the Wiki had fewer pages than it does today. Today, we're faced with vandals, spammers, and LTAs who evade their blocks and continue to create bad pages. Sometimes, their creations do not fit any quick deletion criteria and has to be sent to RFD, which can waste the community's time, especially if the page is recreated with different content each time. Adding this QD criteria gives administrators more options when facing with troublesome editors. Deleting content created by blocked users who are evading also discourages them from continuing their behaviour.

Here are the two options of the proposed wordings, based on the points raised in the last discussion:

  1. Created by a blocked or banned user, who is evading their block or ban when the page was created. The main contributor of that page is the blocked/banned user, and no other user has made significant good-faith edits to the page. This does not mean that an administrator must delete every article created by a blocked or banned user who is evading their block. Any other user can ask for the page to be restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review if they want to improve it.
  2. Creation of a blocked or banned user. The main contributor of that page is the blocked/banned user, and no other user has made significant good-faith changes to the page. This does not mean that an administrator must delete every article created by a blocked or banned. Any other user can ask for the page to be restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review if they want to improve it.

The difference being the inclusion of ...who is evading their block or ban when the page was created in the first option, as this was not settled in the previous discussion.

Thank you.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 00:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support[change source]

  • Support based on the backlog that not having this criterion causes. In some cases, going through community processes is obviously unnecessary, and keeping articles up encourages the abuse to continue per nom. --IWI (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment: Just to be clear, do you support #1, #2 or both? My apologies for not making it clear in the proposal above, there are two options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fehufanga (talkcontribs) 01:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am mostly indifferent, but I'd probably choose option 1. --IWI (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support option 1, Oppose option 2, and make it clear at WP:Deletion policy that this is optional. There are users who create bad pages and blocking/banning them should stop these pages from being created. But I am afraid that admins will use this to manipulate the wiki according to their own desires, if they are allowed to block a user and then delete all their pages. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I think saying admins using this to manipulate the wiki would be a bit of a stretch, I do agree that this is unfair and could be misused very easily if the policy was as simple as being able to nuke all pages created as soon as they are blocked simply because they are blocked. --Ferien (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As nominator, Support option 1. I am indifferent if option 2 gets implemented, but for now, I think we should start with option 1 first.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support option 1 as I think this is a good way to help reduce needless articles being created with very little content change by the same user. I am neutral regarding option 2. However, I do not share Lights and freedom's concerns given in their statement of opposition regarding option 2. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support option 1. Oppose option 2. Option 2 would allow pages to be deleted immediately after blocking a user simply because they are now blocked, which I believe is excessive and I don't remember there being a consensus for something like that during the original discussion. --Ferien (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The backlog of thousands of very low quality articles by users banned at least partly for creating those articles (more often and more precisely for refusing to communicate about them) is a huge negative for the project and has created a debt of work that is unlikely to be fixed any time soon. Yes, please, re-instate this and use it. --Gotanda (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support option number 1. It's far past time we made a clear decision here. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  • As I have outlined in the previous discussion, this requires information that goes beyond what I expect QD to be. I need to check who edited the page, if they are banned/blocked,if the last few edits were only by them, etc. In most cases, this is not worth the effort. In many cases, there'll be another QD rule that can be applied; also don't forget: going through a discussed deletion also gives us legitimacy. Just because it looks like a duck, and quacks like one, doesn't man it is one. Until all of the people looking at it have agreed, we shouldn't kill and roast it. It might be a swan in disguise, after all...--Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So your argument is that to use this voluntary action, you would need to put in more work? That it is not worth the effort to do this extra work rather than just tagging it for RfD and make everyone else to that work for each article that you did not want to do? Easy answer to that - Don't quick delete the article . Its that simple. There is nothing that says you have to delete using this rule. You can just not delete the article using this "criteria". It is not a requirement. Why do you keep thinking this requires anything of you? The only thing it requires is that an admin has decent judgment or can at least learn from past mistakes. Pure Evil (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My argument is different: QD should be: based on the content of the article, I decide that it falls under one of the QD criteria, and can therefore delete it. Who provbided that content is irrelevant. It is similar to reverting an artricle edit: If I see that the article has been edited so that it now has a racist undertone, I revert the edit. Depending on the nature of the edit, I might also block the editor, or oversight the content.In the case we are talkng about, that the banned/blocked edtor wrote something useful, there's no need to do anyzthing. Just because an editor is banned doesn't mean all their edits are bad. So any quick deletuion criteria should be about the content of the article, and not its authors. Eptalon (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But the whole idea is that admins can use their judgement to decide whether to delete or not, and that the criteria does not mean all articles created by banned/indefinitely blocked users must be deleted, just that they can be. --IWI (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You still seem to be under the illusion that this is for deleting all content by a specific user.. It is not. This is about allowing the admins to clean up article that they see as issues that were created in violation of policy. They always have the choice to delete an article or not based on the usefulness of the article itself. Nothing here has any effect there. If a LTA created an good article, fine. Nothing says it HAS to be deleted. IF an admin sees a problem with the article, they CAN chose to evoke this clause to support deletion.
    Could another qd criteria apply? Not always. BEANS prevents me bringing up an easy situation for a flood on RFD of hundreds or even thousands of useless but not QD-able articles. I could create a backlog in RfD in the thousands which would shut down the entire process and allow a horde of other useless articles to slip by. CU and DUCK could shut down the accounts used, but each one could create mayhem before being blocked and there is nothing you can do to stop it or even stem is. Range blocking is easily avoidable, global locks are cute, creation filter have limits. If a troll is determined, there is no way to stop them without drastic effects on every user.
    The only hope is to make it not worth the effort. This "criteria" would allow an admin to wipe it all away quickly and quietly. It the difference between 2-3 thousand RfDs in a week and a matter of minutes of an admins time. One invites vandalism, one discourages it. I pick the second. Pure Evil (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[change source]

  •  Comment: For transparency: I have changed "any user" to "any other user" in the last sentence of both options. It wouldn't make sense for the blocked/banned user to ask for their article to be restored.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For a user to create a page in violation of a block or ban, they must be either:
  • Using the blocked/banned account while under a topic ban rather than a complete block/ban: it would be easy to see that it is the same user.
  • Using a different account: would we require a checkuser action to take action with these, or would WP:DUCK be enough?
  • Editing while logged out: would WP:DUCK be enough here, since it isn't allowed to link an IP to a registered account?
Just some thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If DUCK is enough to block, why not delete? --IWI (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, DUCK should be enough to establish sockpuppetry. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 05:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the same point, if a CU check was done and the account was blocked for it, without this, would we be putting every questioned article up for RfD even if it were obvious to anyone with enough sanity to be trusted with the mop that the article should be deleted? If they got blocked, socked a new account, continued to spam bad articles and then got CU blocked, shouldn't those articles be valid for quick deletion if an admin feels they need to be removed? Not "they must all be removed" but an admin can make the choice based on their digression to delete an article they feel is not need here. This would require a level of trust in admins to be able to decide for themselves what it good but if they can not be trusted to do something like that, why are they admins in the first place? If they decide that the article should be kept or should be discussed at RfD, then they should do that rather than QD it. If in their opinion it should go, wave good bye. Worst case, someone else could request undelete. I seriously doubt the amount of time dealing with the rush of undeletes this would cause (sarcasm) would be remotely close to the amount of time not spent by all editors dealing with all all the RfDs that were bypassed due to an admins judgement. If an admin shows that they can not be trusted to show sound judgement or learn from their mistakes, there is always recall or asking them to step down. Pure Evil (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to change quick deletion to fast deletion[change source]

Well fast is a more commonly known word than quick deletion, making it more suitable in simple English than quick. Do you think this makes sense? Because suppose you talk to a 12-year-old French boy who started learning English at 9. He will probably understand fast rather than quick, probably like I learned English. So should we change it to 'fast' deletion, or should we leave it like this because there are so many 'quick' deletion terms and we are used to it? Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) 02:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick is in BE 1500 but fast is not. --Ferien (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expand the definition of G2[change source]

The G2 criteria states that a page is a "test page", however this criteria is not clearly defined. It only has an example of a possible test page. There are others that know the definition, but also many others who do not. I am left to guess when a page is A1, G1 or G3. Angerxiety 14:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a possibility. A test page is a page created to test the editing function. The enwiki version states: This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself, pages in the user namespace, or valid but unused or duplicate templates; we could adapt our own version. --IWI (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Angerxiety, I don't think an expansion of G2 is necessary. What a test page is is fairly clear. It is a page that was clearly created as a test. "Can I really create a page here?" would be one example, but it could also be used for "testing" or something similar. It seems G2 is often used for nonsense (e.g. ueri314g) pages (that are eligible for G1) and articles with just a couple of words (that are eligible for A1), however pages like that aren't actually eligible for G2. It is only pages that are clearly created as tests. Anything else can use the other criteria. G3 is used for clear vandalism that wouldn't fit A1 or G1. --Ferien (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects section[change source]

The way it's written doesn't sound good. Converting articles to redirects is mentioned right before the section on deleting redirects. It suggests you can convert an article to a redirect, and then tag the redirect for quick deletion. This isn't usually acceptable because it's a way to avoid the RFD process. Maybe that first sentence should be removed? Lights and freedom (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it suggests that. It specifically instructs you to use RfD for any articles that cannot be deleted quickly. Any redirect can be deleted under two of those QD redirect rules even if that page has been to RfD in the past, especially R1. R2 could apply in theory – let's say we RfD a userdraft, it's kept, but then it's eventually moved to mainspace. R3 would never apply because it is only for recently created redirects. --Ferien (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is "For any articles that should not be deleted quickly, use Wikipedia:Requests for deletion." relevant to the section about redirects? Lights and freedom (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because sometimes at RfD we might choose to redirect a page to another instead of deleting it. --Ferien (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the section is about deleting redirects, not creating them. I still don't think it fits there. I also think it would be better to replace these sentences with what WPchanger2011 wrote. Similar text is there in the "articles" section in case someone doesn't know there's an alternative to quick deletion and just clicks the section heading. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it could be helpful in showing what redirects are clearly acceptable and unacceptable but I'm not sure if that's the best place for this sort of thing. I don't think we would talk about this if we added it today, it doesn't have very much relevance, but at the same time, I don't see much of a reason to remove it. --Ferien (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A4 reword[change source]

I propose that we change the first sentence of A4 to say "important" instead of "notable". The intention of A4 is not notability (which is decided at RfD) but significance or importance, which is a lower standard than notability. I believe the current wording has led to some confusion about what the criterion applies to. The current wording implies that it can be used to delete articles that do not make claims that would meet notability guidelines, which is not how A4 is or should be used.

Since the criterion is not intended to apply to notability, it does not make sense to include the sentence "If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD with a result to keep, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead" as an article's content will either meet the criterion or it will not. Notable subjects can have articles deleted via A4, as it only applies to what is claimed within the article. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the intent of A4 is to address notability. Also, there's a specific definition of notability as it applies to Wikipedia article subjects. If we start using the term "important" instead, we would need a specific definition of that as well because it's a subjective term. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: If you read A4 as it stands, the next sentences are "This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion." The intention of A4 should be to mimic the equivalents on enwiki, and that is how A4 currently reads, aside from the first sentence. Information about what "important" or "significant" means can be found here on enwiki; notability is a much higher standard than what A4 is intended for. It may be useful to have our own version of this page. --IWI (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In what way would that help us? - A claim of notability, is enough. If there's a burning building 100m down the road, and I write an article about it, that article has to say why this subject is worth writing about? - What if the building was Grenfell tower? - Yes, it burned down, many people lost their lives, but at what moment in time did that event become worth writing about`? - How many buildings burn down each day, possibly injuring or killing people, how many of them get articles? - Can we argue a case where this change, as proposed, actually makes a difference? - how much perceptual overhead' does it introduce, and is that worth the effort of explaining? - The idea is to be as sipmle as possible, with as few rules/cases as necessary. Eptalon (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon: In the case of Grenfell Tower, the presence of any coverage in reliable sources being added to the article would be enough to pass A4 as it is a low standard. It helps us because it avoids articles being quickly deleted for "not being notable", when that is a discussion the community should have at RfD. I could well delete a good chunk of the articles that go to RfD via A4 if it were intended to refer to the notability guidelines, but it simply cannot and is not used that way. I'm not really proposing any major change to the actual policy, just a slight reword to the first sentence for accuracy and a removal of an unnecessary part that doesn't make sense in the context of the criterion. The policy already uses the word "importance" everywhere else, I am not sure why the first sentence links to WP:NOTABILITY, it should not. --IWI (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yes we should be simple, but that doesn't mean we should have quick deletion criteria that contains inaccurate and confusing descriptions. The word "importance" is probably more simple anyway. --IWI (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Importance" may be taught to language learners before "notable", but is faaaar more confusing in a Wikipedia context. We'd need to define this standard of importance. Important to who? Important in what contexts? Is someone being a parent important because their children view them as such? Notable is a well-defined and long-discussed standard, and there have been few problems with the A4 standard of a claim to notability. If there are problems with the application of the QD criteria, we can address that, but there's no need to create the further confusion of a new and far more subjective standard. Best, Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vermont: I see what you mean, but it is still leading to confusion with the current wording. I at least still believe that the sentence mentioned in my second paragraph should be removed, because someone disagreeing with whether a subject is notable or not should have no influence on whether an article meets A4 or not. I also think having a short version of en:WP:Credible claim of significance here on simple linked from the word “notable” (instead of WP:Notability, which actually has nothing to do with this criterion, as determining notability is always done at RfD) would make the meaning of A4 much clearer. The word "notability" doesn't have to be changed in order to make the criterion a little more specific. Any thoughts? (Also ping @Auntof6 and Eptalon:). --IWI (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will perhaps state again: If there is a person who sees that just shortly down the road, a house is burning, or that people are rioting or fighting with police, at what point in time does that event become worth writing about? - Perhaps an example (no, don't klick on the links) - en:Igor Kostin,en:Anatoly Dyatlov, or en:Vasily Ignatenko all of them are worth writing about. Why? - the helped clean up and secure the mess, after the Chernobyl disaster. In English, they are known as en:Chernobyl liquidators. Most of them died shortly after the disaster, as they had been exposed to a lot of radiation. Most were young. Let me come back to the original subject. All of them are worth writing about, but in our small community no one has written about them, because no one found the time or interest to do so. And that's perhaps where the fine difference lies: If something is important, it is important for a person,or a group of people. If something is notable, it is important for everyone, and we no longer need to argue whether some specific person finds it worth writing about. This also means we need to be very careful with the terminology. As I pointed out, the terms are not interchangeable. Changing one for the other changes the scope and meaning of the sentence. So, which of the two meanings do we want? Eptalon (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And like I said, the answer to what "significance" and "importance" means is explained in-depth at en:Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance (a statement in the article that attributes noteworthiness or information written about the subject in reliable sources), and it is a very low standard (lower than notability guidelines). This is already how A4 is applied. --IWI (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think something from that page that is also particularly relevant here is "A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability". --IWI (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]