Wikipedia:Issues/Deletion policies

Basic deletion process

discussion from Wikipedia:Areas for Reform

The process of deletion, such as AFD, only works if as many editors as possible are encouraged to participate, and that means giving each one them a vote. Some of the arguments put forward at AFD discussions may be based on Wikipedia's content policies, some on insider/expert knoweledge of a topic, but quite a lot are based on a lack of understanding.

Overall, some arguments hold more weight than others, but which ones do, and the outcome of the resulting deletion discussions, is a matter of consensus and is not proscribed in any policy. The result is that deletion is not a consistent process, but then it is hard to imagine how it could be since the administrators who run it cannot override consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Esowteric raised the issue in a way in the discussion on getting new editors. Can the system be adopted to indicate that "consensus" is not a means of overturning "reasonableness"? IIRC, several !votes have been heavily weighted with "related editors" which surely adds to the problem of inconsistency. Collect (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel as though the process has generated progressively less and less drama as we've slowly, collectively worked out what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The way to make deletion policy clear is to make our content policies clear. Nifboy (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and newbies

Many articles that are started in good faith by first time editors are deleted within an hour of creation, with only a passing and aggressive talk-page notice warning the poster that they've done something wrong. This entire conversation with newbies, and the process of correcting a new page at odds with policy, should be improved. Speedies for anything but vandalism and literal spam (not something that might be self-promotion or might be useful but non-neutral information; might be a copyvio but might be the author of the original page adding it to WP; might be a recreation of a deleted page or might be an indication that an earlier deletion was hasty) cause a lot of grief, and may not be needed at all.

The vandal-fighting process currently uses automated tools that make it difficult to have any sort of thoughtful reflection on whether the method used to delete and warn a user was appropriate. And people who see themselves as fighting vandalism don't see themselves as also being a newbie welcome squad, though in effect they are.