Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I propose to add the below to the current policy:

===Proposed deletion===
An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. These pages can be deleted by any adminstrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion. Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. This process only applies to pages in the Article, User, and User Talk namespaces.

  • Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for proposed deletion can be found in Category:Proposed deletion
  • How to do this: Edit the page to add the following text to the top: {{subst:prod|reason}}, writing your reasoning in the "reason" field.
  • If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.
  • Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.

See also Wikiquote:Deletion review/Draft, Wikiquote:Proposed deletion (draft!). Discussions should go to Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion. Thank you for your attention! --Aphaia 06:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific "reason for deletion" text[edit]

I'd like to use the excuse of a number of recently minted admins to ask all of us to review and consider how we might be a bit clearer with the "reason for deletion" text when we delete. By default, many pages provide an automatic "content was:" message, but that's not really a justification, it's a demand for log readers to deduce why we deleted the page from the leading fragment of text, which is often unhelpful.

I'm not asking for standardization, but there are two good practices I've seen in use by various admins:

  • Deleting VfD'd pages with the linked discussion as the entire reason.
  • Speedy-deleting pages with a prefix like "SD: nonsense" or "SD: G1", based on Wikiquote:Speedy deletions#The cases.

I feel it's important that we make clear for the Wikiquote community on what policy we base these deletion decisions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both practices nice, and though I myself don't follow, appreciate a rational with link to WQ:CSD. Reasons could be perceived when a deleting admin keep the tag as the tagged reason, like {{delete|nonsense}}, but it is subtle and mere a presumption: the reason explicitly provided is better at any rate. --Aphaia 09:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest an addition for the sake of clarity, so the sentence reads:

Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again (but may be submitted at Votes for deletion).

Tyrenius 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (Contested prod failed simply and never prodded). Please go ahead. --Aphaia 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is said already :D

Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.

Closure by non-admins[edit]

We never got round to the issue raised by the VfD on Never, where it was initially closed by a non-admin as a keep. On WP, the policy is clear that a non-admin can close a clear keep; I have even seen a non-admin snowball closure. However, I see no reason to do that here; we have enough admins to manage the system, and the great majority of our VfDs are deletes.--Poetlister 15:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. However I am not against non-admin snowball keep (while we have either WQ:SNOW), if admin corps retain the right to revert non-admin closure (specially in case it is no "snowball case"). --Aphaia 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep it this way as well, at least for the foreseeable future, for the following reasons:
  • VfD is, as I recently said elsewhere, the sole place in Wikiquote where article issues can be addressed with a specific timeframe. This high visibility and its basic purpose (to get rid of pages) make it a place where unhappy folks regularly express their feelings. I'd prefer they not have the option to do so by closing discussions without regard to policies and practices. (We have enough problems ensuring folks open discussions correctly. I suspect very few VfD participants bother to read WQ:DP, despite the bold instructions at the top of WQ:VFD.)
  • We have plenty of admins vs. the number of discussions we're having. I'd rather encourage existing admins to put a little more effort into doing closures. This is not only one of the key areas in Wikiquote where participation encourages us to support adminship, but is also one of the two general forums where hard issues are first raised and often resolved. I fear that the more we push off responsibilities for article deletion on non-admins, the less admin participation we'll get.
  • We have yet to test our informal, draft Wikiquote:Deletion review. Although it's arguably useful to force this by setting up for more questionable closures, I'm not anxious to test the theory this way.
Basically, I'd much rather leave the responsibility for judging the temperature of the community in the hands of people who have been approved for greater powers by the community for their demonstrated responsibility.
I must respectfully disagree with Aphaia on allowing non-admin snowball closures. What is obvious to some may not be obvious to others. I'm concerned already that some admins seem to feel that we only need a slight majority to make a decision (instead of the more typical two-thirds support), and that some "no consensus" closures are incorrecly labelled "keep", as if the community was clear on its opinion. I would expect even looser guidelines to be followed by non-admins (e.g., closing a nomination within minutes after only a few identical votes without giving the community some time to think about it; not bothering to consider the possibilities of sockpuppets or meatpuppets; etc.). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only time that I will ever support closing a RfD by non-admins is when overwhelming opinions are to keep. Even so, only admins should be allowed to ever close early. Otherwise, I can never support closing a RfD by non-admins.--Jusjih 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no urgent pressing need to allow non-admins to close a vote, since we have a good number of admins fortunately. So the next question is ... we need to write it down so and so? --Aphaia 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK: We've had 7 days. I see no great desire to allow non-admin closures.--Poetlister 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second nominations[edit]

What is the procedure for a second nomination for a deletion? The article on Brimstone (wrestler) is facing deletion on Wikipedia and I saw that there was an article here. This person isn't notable and the WP page would qualify as a vanity page. The page here can be argued as both personal quotes and a personal website in similar fashion for the latter, which is in violation of WQ:NOT. I want to revisit this WQ article's deletion. TLPG (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pointers on the mechanics of making a second nomination at my VFD tips. I would suggest waiting for the Wikipedia discussion to conclude, because there are usually more eyes on that venue, but you can make a re-nomination based on significant new information at any time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]