Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Link to header

type the page name?[change source]

In the "Create a discussion page" #2 instructions, it says "Type the page name and the reason you are requesting deletion in the right places." I filled in the reason but don't see a place to type the page name. Did I miss it, or is that part no longer necessary? Toliar (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Archival Templates[change source]

I think that it would be more organized to place the archive wraps on a...

that will give a visual clue, that the discussion is indeed closed.

Also, I think the closing summary should be up top... bottom line up front. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree to both. Exert 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely better. I think it needs to be done. hmwithτ 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

New system[change source]

Now that we have done it for a few days (new section, bottom line up front, and archival templates) is there any feedback? Like dislike? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we keep this system, the template should be fixed, that the new rfds have no outcome section and so on. Barras (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How...[change source]

How do I request for deletion? Can I do it even if I'm not an admin? How do I put it inside requests for deletion? ??? Please answer me! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply came in before you posted this. Please check your talk page. Pmlineditor  06:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

High Schools/Schools/Colleges notability discussion[change source]

Here's how I feel about it:

  1. Most colleges and universities are notable enough to have an article here
  2. Most high schools are not notable enough to have an article here, even if they have an article on EN-Wiki (Remember, we're not supposed to have articles on everything EN has)

That's my two cents Purplebackpack89 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to, but it's a useful indicator. I'm not sure why you would claim that "most high schools are not notable here" when the indicator we should be relying on is the number of sources available. Making sweeping generalisations is not helpful here. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The idea that we won't have every article that en has is long outdated. If a subject is notable, its notable and we should have it. Are all highschools notable, I am not sure. I would bet I could find multiple newspaper articles on almost any highschool. If that is true, then yes highschools are notable and they should be added. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Its true almost every high school has a number of articles and webpages..etc etc. Should we make a difference between american high schools which are often more mentioned in media then lets say a latvian high school. Every high school isnt notable but IF threy are in a specific case then ofcourse they shouldnt be deleted. But we should not make a general assumption that all high schools colleges etc etc are notable,.--Sinbad (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
To DJ:I can think of numerous policies that would suggest that we shouldn't have an article on everything EN does, most of them falling under the "not English wikipedia" banner (especially the part about "only having the basics"). If you believe that to be outdated, perhaps we should discuss. And just because something is notable doesn't necessarily mean it needs to have an article here. My high school is fairly notable, has an article on EN, but most likely won't have an article here anytime soon Purplebackpack89 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually what WP:NOT just says we will have the most common topics. Some people interpret that to mean we won't have everything english wikipedia does, but really thats just simple english for saying we only have notable topics. As for we are not english wikipedia, that pertains to just copying articles over word for word. And as for discussing, that topic has been discussed at length may times to basically come to the conclusion I have mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Restart[change source]

This discussion could use a reset, things have changed since the above was said and this is something that needs to be discussed. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that if there are enough content to warrant their own article with WP:RS then I believe there shouldn't really be an issue about WP:N here. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I stand by my general belief that high schools probably don't need articles here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Most high schools should not have separate articles. However, high schools which have independent, non-local press coverage can have a separate article. For example, Bronx High School of Science, New Trier High School, University of Chicago Lab School, Choate Academy, etc. deserve separate articles. Other high schools can be covered in the article about their school district or system. Racepacket (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether a school (or other subject) "should" be here or "needs to" be here is different from whether they get mentioned in the press. Just because we can satisfy our official requirements for notability doesn't mean we really need the article; it depends on what the mention is. If a local newspaper publishes a list of area high schools, to me that doesn't establish notability. Neither does a movie being listed in newspapers along with all the other movies that happen to be showing at a given time. Neither does having TV series episodes included on web sites that list episodes of everything. If our goal is to give people with lower English skills a place to learn, what good does it do to have articles about high schools or other things that aren't noteworthy? If our goal is to document all of human knowledge, then we might need to rethink. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I saw we just continue to follow WP:N. If a subject can be presumed notable, I don't see why we can't have an article.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tools[change source]

Can one of our high speed coders build for us a RFD closure button that automagically applies the archival templates and changes the status :) I love you all. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrote up this quick script: User:Grunny/ajaxquickrfdclose.js, and I tested it here. Let me know if it's what you want from it :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Lets awesome, I can already tell this is going to save time, yes. Is there anyway to code in a "other" also? Thank you for your time. Yours, Jon@talk:~$ 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. How did you want the other option to work? It currently uses {{kept}} or {{deleted}} with optional reasoning, and those templates then categorise it into one of the two categories. So, how would you want the Other field to work in terms of the template used (if any) and categorising it based on what you enter? Cheers, Grunny (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I see there's a {{RfDresult}} template. I'll use that and the Other option shortly. Cheers, Grunny (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I created {{RfDresult}} a month ago for "merge" and "redirect" results. It categorizes the RfD under Category:Requests for deletion that did not succeed because technically the content is not deleted—it is merely merged and is preserved in the history.
Also, could an admin modify {{kept}} and {{deleted}} so that no default period is placed after the result? Sometimes it's easier when something is speedily deleted or when something is merged to tag "per WP:QD" OR "per WP:MERGE" after the result. Goodvac (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've added an Other option. Let me know if there are any problems with it :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing requests[change source]

Question 1: Is it appropriate for an admin to close an RfD that he or she voted in? (I know it isn't if the admin initiated the RfD.)

Question 2: Is two votes enough for consensus (both votes being the same, of course)?

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just based on my experience:
  1. Not usually. In cases that require no judgement – where the consensus is overwhelmingly obvious or where the request itself was just a formality – then nobody really cares. I think I've done it a few times, but it's not a good habit to get into.
  2. Yes, that's perfectly fine, if the rationale is soundly based in policy. Although you can choose to extend the nomination or just leave it for a few days if you see potential for it going the other way. If somebody later objects, what I would do (though I've never seen it done) is to treat it similar to en:WP:SOFTDELETE.
That's just my process. Trust your judgement. Osiris (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Here are my answers: If a request only gets two votes, this usually means one of the following:
  1. No one cares
  2. The outcome of the request can be directly derived from some policy or guideline.
Even if they may appear odd in the archives, there is no problem of closing such a request, if the two votes are the same; if they aren't, it is obviously a judgment call, and rooting it in some policy or guideline may help. As to the initiating/voting admin closing: The admin who closes the request will "look for consensus" or he will try to find a policy or guideline to base the decision on. This is pretty independent of how he voted. On the other hand, this wiki has many admins, so finding an uninvolved admin is usually not difficult. Bureaucrats have more experience in this, a bureaucrat may be better able to judge the consensus (Even if he feels strongly one way or another). In the case, where is a ürpblem, this can always be handled at the Requests for undeletion page. --Eptalon (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. Unless its blatantly obvious then you shouldn't close something you commented in. Even then we have enough admins that you can probably just let someone else do it.
  2. Even with no one commenting it can be closed as delete. Our Rfd functions as both the Afd and Prod process at en so you as an admin have the option of leaving it open for further comment as Osiris mentions or you can close it as delete.
-DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Close obvious ones more quickly?[change source]

The page is getting over-long, cluttered with items that are obviously going one way or the other. IMO obvious decisions should be closed more quickly (SNOW), and closed items need archiving more regularly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The instructions say that items can be closed early at the discretion of an admin. There are some I would have closed early, but I either proposed them myself or commented on them. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Really there is no need to rush things faster than the 7 days. Our list of items up for delete is really quite small. We generate less in a month than en does in a day. So it is hardly unmanageable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Request: Studio B Productions[change source]

Reason: Not notable, no sources, some parts inaccurate, simply bad and it simply doesn't need to be on here. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:98D0:7346:5BA8:86E3 (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deketed, then do a proper deletion request. Leaving a message on this page is not a valid way of asking for a page to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notifying the user[change source]

I happened to come across an (former?) editor who started 13 articles here but seven of those articles have been deleted (two of which have since been recreated). This editor’s talk page has only one notice of an RfD nomination.

Should it not be mandatory to notify editors when their work is proposed for deletion? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is my edit not showing up in thehistory of this page?[change source]

I have added a {{fact}} template with An edit summarynexplaining it, but i cannot see it in the view history of this page. just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

_Update my edit is showing up now. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Have delete, keep, and comments sections just like rfas[change source]

the lack of this has caused confusion for myself and others Computer Fizz (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

On RfD's? I don't think that would work well. There's many more options than simply delete and keep, and it also isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Separating the votes wouldn't result in as beneficial a discussion imo. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: rfa's aren't a vote either, although i do understand that rfd's are not usually binary. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I oppose separate sections as well. Like Vermont mentioned, some outcomes are merge, redirect, etc. so wouldn't fit into the standard categories. Also we don't have a tremendous amount of discussion on RfDs so I think keeping it all together isn't too bad. Desertborn (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we need that. It would, however, be helpful if people would remember to highlight their preferred action, such as with bolding or using one of the voting templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Wait, so if it's like
Delete reason
Keep reason
Delete reason

then that's wrong? Computer Fizz (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, that would be fine. My comment was because I've seen people post on RFDs without being clear what their viewpoint was. If they highlight (such as with bolding as in your example, or in some other way) delete, keep, merge, redirect, comment, or whatever the gist of their comment is, that's very helpful. I don't think we can enforce it, but it would be helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)