User:Mangojuice/delete

My philosophy on deletion

I'm writing this down for two reasons. One is to remind myself that I have an overall philosophy on deletion. I, personally, need this reminder because I like to get involved in debates, and sometimes I take a position based more on how much I like making the argument than because it's what I really think. The second is that, hopefully, others will read it and take it to heart.

Deletion isn't nice

It's one thing to delete stuff put here by people who don't understand the basic idea of wikipedia. Many of these people are never interested in building an encyclopedia anyway, and just wish that they could promote themselves or their band or their ideology.

In many controversial deletions, though, it's work of honest, well-meaning editors that you're trying to wipe off of the encyclopedia. This isn't nice to those people. Sometimes, unfortunately, it has to be done anyway, but it seems these days like no one takes the time to interact with the editors of a page first and bring up their concerns. This is a neccessary first step before deletion, except in the case of articles that are clearly inactive. However, this is the minimum. Better yet, work on the article yourself! Try building a bridge before burning one.

Nominating an article for deletion without anyone taking any of these steps, when the article has active, good faith contributors, is downright uncivil. Just because deletion is process doesn't mean it's okay for anyone to nominate an article for deletion at any time.

Deletion isn't constructive

When articles are nominated for deletion, a lot of complaints are aired about the article. But it's very rare that anyone actually fixes an article. There's a natural reason for this: deletion debates last a week at most, and improving articles is HARD. No one can expect an article to be improved on that kind of timescale, it's unrealistic and unfair. From Wikipedia's editing policy: "Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect." This is a beautiful idea: Wikipedia, despite its breadth, is a work in progress. There are a lot of bad articles out there, but if you think about them as imperfectly done good articles, the whole view changes. Instead of Wikipedia being full of bad stuff, it's just not done yet.

And of course, it never really will be.

Deletion is a waste of time

People spend a lot of time and effort on deletion debates. Unfortunately deletion rarely improves the encyclopedia in any way. Wikipedia is not paper, and articles on non-notable subjects have little effect on anything: sure, you could get to one when you click on "random article", but otherwise, it doesn't get in the way of good articles to have bad ones. Deleting an inappropriate article is a good thing, but let's not get carried away! It doesn't make that big a difference. And since most deletions are handled under WP:CSD or WP:PROD anyway, we can conclude that deletion debates are not really good for the encyclopedia.

Deletion is good for the community

The paradoxical thing is, deletion debates are good for the community. It's a central, visible forum wherein many editors share their thoughts, and since it's a discussion, people can just state opinions; it's a lot easier than writing articles. This is the real good reason I'm involved with deletion debates; I want to get to know other editors and I want them to get to know me, and I want to find some of the challenging issues facing Wikipedia and its community and this is a way to do it.

Pledge

From this day forward, I pledge to:

• Consider the feelings of other editors before nominating their work for deletion,
• Work on improving articles as well as debating about them,
• Not waste too much of my time in deletion debates, and
• Encourage others to do the same.

Add your name to the list if you agree to this pledge:

1. Mangojuice^talk 04:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
2. StoneGiant 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
3. I've been that way for a while on my own, but fine... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
4. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
5. I've done this before, and won't do it again. Kitia 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
6. I'm nowhere near as active as most here, but I've always thought like this. Spoom - Talk 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Makes perfect sense. I should know, as I was a victim of a deleted article that I spent time and effort creating. And it really sucks. And I still haven't forgiven the person who carried the banner for deleting it. So I've taken up the cause of ensuring that all knowledge is available in Wikipedia, that even the smallest piece of information deserves mention and even expansion into full-fledged articles, no matter how seemingly insignificant. That's my philosophy... because Wikipedia is not paper, so BE BOLD! WP:BB - Cloudreaver 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Kudos on this excellent pledge. I've also "borrowed" your four things to remember from your user page. Important things to remember! Thanks much! JubalHarshaw 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Am totally linking this on my Userpage. Nicely worded:) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
10. --Kevin Murray 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Hell yes! Therequiembellishere 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Well said. Often the best result of a deletion debate is that the article is improved. --Salix alba (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
13. I wish this was an even more strongly worded part of WP:DELETION etc. Policy should require an attempt at discussion with other editors of an article before any sort of deletion is proposed. Unfortunately it is not. Every day I see examples like this. I don't think that is the best way to encourage very new editors to contribute. - Neparis (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
14. I usally see this as a side affect to systemic bias. Editorofthewiki 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Dammit, I used to do this, then I stopped. Thanks for the sanity check. Paxse (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
16. I never enterd a deleeshun debayt, duu not wawnt tuu go dhehr, nohr duu I kayr if it iz non-kontrohvershooL. Bohgosity BumaskiL.75.152.117.14 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)