Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Notifications of proposed deletions

Sometimes people who have edited articles are notified when someone proposes their deletion. That is a good idea because those who edit an article often know something about the topic and can add relevant information not available elsewhere. Sometimes WikiProjects are notified for the same reason. However, I've been told by a number of people that deletion policies do not recommend such notices. Since there are clear reasons why such notifications are useful, I think this page ought to recommend it.

(Some legalistically inclined people have even made a point of saying that the lack of such a recommendation here should be given weight as a reason not to do it! One should improve Wikipedia only by doing what's required or at least recommended by promulgated guidelines, not by what common sense tells you would improve it.) Michael Hardy 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I've been told the same thing, and not as nicely - they usually flat-out call it canvassing! With certian types of AFDs, howeve, I've found that simply listing the AFD on the required list page for AFDs is tantamount to canvassing. To me, the primary contributors should be notified, if possible, and the project(s) which the article falls under should be also. I've been involved in enough AFDs of WP:AIR pages to know there is a WIDE variety of opinion of whether certain pages should exist or be deleted, and I strongly suspect it's true in other projects as well. Most importantly though, project have the most experience with those kind of articles, and it is silly to exclude notification of them. Notification of projects should be explicitly allowed, even recommended, if not required, without fear of accusations such as canvassing by others. - BillCJ 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The way to avoid accusations of canvassing is to notify everyone likely to be involved.Even if we are not to require notification--as I very strongly think we should--it should be stated unambiguously that notifying all significant recent editors, or projects, is both permitted and encouraged. It is a incorrect assumption that this will lead to the keeping of unworthy article--who are more likely to recognize the non-notable than those involved with the subject field? who are more likely to want that the subject they care about be properly represented by good articles? who would not want their input? DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The way to avoid accusations of canvassing is to notify everyone likely to be involved.

Notifying those likely to be involved is just what got me accused of "canvassing", although I didn't urge them to keep the article, only to express their opinions on whether it should be kept. And what's wrong with canvassing anyway? It seems to me there are common-sense reasons why canvassing could be good for Wikipedia in general. Michael Hardy 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing and associated talk might be worth reading. GRBerry 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If any such wording is added to the deletion policy, it must be very explicitly stated that such is a recommendation and in no way a requirement. On general principle I have to oppose the inclusion of this kind of recommendation as placing too much a burden on the nominator. How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article? I can understand if someone wants to notify the projects that are listed on the article's talk page, but even that is less self-evident than picking out editors. An editor's interest in an article is obvious based upon edit history, whereas the rather boilerplate {{Project Whatever}} tags can be added at a single editor's discretion and do not necessarily reflect interest on behalf of the community.

For what it is worth, I believe that the issues people have had in the past with notifying Wikiprojects being tantamount to canvassing is due to a concern that while visitors to an AfD tend to represent a broader cross-section of editors and (at least ideally) be less biased in any one direction, the involvement of a project has the potential to flood a discussion with one subset of editors who typically share a point of view and will thus taint the discussion in that direction.

Personally I am not a fan of notifications of any kind - people with a genuine interest in an article will have it watchlisted and be made aware of the nomination (assuming the proper procedure is followed). Many Wikiprojects have a scheme in place to create a notification for articles they care to "watch" as well. I see no need to broadcast the fact to a group of people who might be interested who otherwise show little to no interest in the development of said article. I do not support notifying Wikiprojects as it has the potential to foment a sense of project ownership over an article or a set of articles. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In my own experience with AFD, the statement "the involvement of a project has the potential to flood a discussion with one subset of editors who typically share a point of view and will thus taint the discussion in that direction." sounds rather humorous to me. I have found that many deletionists are regulars of that board, and thus have a systematic bias when voting. Moreover, these deletionists rarely are "experts" on the subjects they are proposing for deletion. I have seen many valuable lists, for instance, get canned due to ignorance on the part of such editors who have assumed an article is "unencyclopediac". This sort of proposition will get more people involved with AFD in general, doing away with "debates" amongst like-minded deletionists with user boxes stating that much. Often it is a matter of an individual not understanding rocket science, and thus assuming their ignorance equals lack of criteria for inclusion. (Mind meal 07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article?

By using common sense. They're not required to be infallible or omniscient. It's just something that might help improve Wikipedia. It is always a good idea to call the existence of any article to the attention of those likely to be able to contribute to it and improve it. Michael Hardy 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and observe the practical utility: by notifying those interested, one avoids a possible later need to got to a deletion review, which would only complicate things and make more work necessary. Michael Hardy 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How are they supposed to determine which, if any, Wikiprojects are "interested" in an article?

By checking the talk page! Most projects have headers that are posted at the top of the page. If there's not one because it's a new article (especially if it was only created 2 minutes before the AFD was filed! - really happened!), then a good editor would check articles on a similar topic to see what project those articles were in ,and then notify them. - BillCJ 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason these are frequently called canvassing, is because the "notifications" way too often take the form of messages like "those $#$%ing %&*$#s are trying to delete our great article! You must come here now and vote to keep it!" >Radiant< 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And therefore a standardized wording is desirable. The templates for all three methods of deletion have such a notice, if only people would simply use it. DGG (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of certain groups or certain users being "interested in" an article; it's a matter of certain groups and certain users being knowledgeable about the subject and therefore able to contribute. Michael Hardy 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: What got me accused of "canvassing" shortly before I posted this proposal here, is simply that I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics of a proposed deletation, without urging the to support or to oppose deletion. Michael Hardy 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of wording of the policy

I am unsure of the current policy on deletion and was unable to clarify by reading the deletion policy. I propose to clarify the wording of the policy.

My question was this: Is not being notable a reason for deletion?

And I now refer to the following "reason for deletion":

"Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)"

I note and assert that this line is currently the most definitive statement on whether or not being non-notable is a reason for deletion. (If not, please simply redirect me to a more definitive statement which I may have missed.)

The reason I believe it needs clarification is this: it does not include WP:N in the list.

I believe that this means that those who originally wrote it, and many of those who have expressly or impliedly agreed with it since, meant and interpreted it as meaning only that the notability sub-guidelines were reasons for deletion, and that non-notability for regular articles (such as Commit_charge, for example), is not a reason for deletion.

I believe that either WP:N needs to be included in this list of notability guidelines, or it needs to be specifically excluded.

Whatever the answer, I expect that the result will be controversial (unless I've just missed something, of course!), so I suggest we discuss it on this page until a consensus is reached, before changing the policy page. -- BenBildstein 05:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that the words "notability guideline" are linked to {{Notabilityguide}} (via a redirect), and that WP:N is the first item listed in that template. The implication is clear - WP:N is included, the others are examples of subject specific guidelines. GRBerry 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In that case, I suggest we include WP:N in the list explicitly, to avoid doubt or confusion (such as mine). -- BenBildstein 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting non-notable content

I believe there is a problem with the list of "reasons for deletion". One of the listed reasons for deletion is "subject fails to meet the the relevant notability guideline". This seems to be the only reason on the list that would allow the deletion of content that is appropriate for Wikipedia. It seems to me that every other item on the list refers to content that should be removed from Wikipedia, while there is no reason to remove non-notable content.

I am not making an anti-notability argument. In fact, it was reading User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_things that made me realise this.

Let me clarify what I am saying. First, I believe everyone will agree that the other items on the reason list pertain to things that should be entirely removed from Wikipedia. However, the notability guideline says specifically that "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". That is, when a topic is not notable, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia; instead, it means it doesn't belong on its own page.

So unlike the other reasons for deletion, when we delete something purely because it is non-notable, we may be removing valid, useful, verifiable, encyclopedic, NPOV, properly sourced, well written content that is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia.

I propose we change the policy on handling non-notable pages. I think the policy should be to merge the content of pages that have non-notable topics into other pages, so as not to lose this clearly valuable content. I believe this is more in line with the notability guideline. This would also necessitate changing Template:Notability to make the options "expand or merge", instead of "expand or delete".

Is this the right place to start a discussion on this proposed change? Can someone tell me what is the best way to progress this issue? -- BenBildstein 07:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the rare case a non-notable topic is brought up for deletion that contains well-sourced information that is relevant to a broader topic, it is usually merged to the appropriate article. This is a solution for a problem that does not exist, to my knowledge. Vassyana 08:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that has semi-agreement :)

Actually, I would think that every time a non-notable topic is deleted, we're deleting worthwhile content. The content policies say nothing about which topics are appropriate, and the notability guideline says nothing about content. But yes, if both the topic and the content are inappropriate, then both should be removed. -- BenBildstein 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your initial statement is self-contradictory. Subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guideline are, de facto, inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest you spend a day or two at new page patrol to see what the actual problem is here. >Radiant< 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not sure which statement you are saying is contradictory, but...) I believe you are wrong that "subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines are, de facto, inappropriate for Wikipedia." See WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, which is also quoted below. Such subjects are not "notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article", but "Notability guidelines [...] do not specifically regulate the content of articles". And also: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." -- BenBildstein 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the term saying that notability doesn't limit article content isn't saying that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted, AIUI, it's saying that as long as the subject of an article is notable, anything relevant to that subject can go in the article regardless of whether that particular info is notable. That is, notability limits the subject of the article, but not the content. SamBC(talk) 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above, the content is limited, but chiefly by verifiability coupled with neutral point of view.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant part of the notability guideline:

"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."

I believe this makes it quite clear. I agree that it doesn't say that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted. I'm saying that non-notable things shouldn't be deleted. If there is content that's only failing is being written into a page that's topic doesn't satisfy WP:N, I say we should make every effort not to delete that content. -- BenBildstein 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already guidance that it's better to merge, and possibly redirect, in many cases. Of course, the information still has to be verifiable and NPOV. SamBC(talk) 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of AfDs in which a merge or transwiki was the outcome. If the information is appropriate somewhere, but "on Wikipedia as a standalone article" is not that somewhere, those options are already available, either to move it to a parent or related article, or to move it off Wikipedia and to another project entirely. However, the vast majority of things deleted for non-notability fit neither category—they're not appropriate for any parent article (and may not be sourced at all) and aren't appropriate for any other project either. Just because information is verifiable, not original research, and neutral does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate for its own article, or for any article. Remember, we're all editors here, and an important function of an editor is to cut. Deleting and removing things is not in and of itself bad, it's just as necessary a maintenance task as copyediting and correcting misspellings. What notability helps to do is answer the question "Alright, we know we need to cut sometimes, but what should we cut?" The answer is, "Things no reliable sources have bothered to take any significant note of." We reflect reliable sources, we don't second-guess them, and we're not a first publisher. So when reliable sources have chosen not to publish anything or much of anything about something, we reflect that by not doing so either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

BenBildstein, your logic has a fundamental mistake. While it is true that, under some circumstances, the content of a page on a non-notable subject can be merged into a page on a notable subject, in the overwhelming majority of cases it cannot, either as a result of guidelines on trivia or because no encyclopedic topic that could contain that information exists. While it is true that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, neither do they expand article content; content that is relevant only to a non-notable subject would have no home on Wikipedia with or without these guidelines. I could write a hundred-page article about every marking on my cat, providing detailed photographs, documentation from the vet, and careful verification of every point. The topic of my cat would still be unencyclopedic; though AFD is, under the current system, instructed to consider places where such information could be moved, it is plain that in cases such as these there is no place for it to go. If you think that this is an odd or unlikely example, you have not spent much time on newpages patrol. Additionally, you are wrong that notability is the only criteria that could potentially delete useful information. A hoax could contain a paragraph of truth; an article on a newly-coined word can often be merged into a larger article about slang. More to the point, all of WP:NOT is given as a valid reason for deletion... try looking over that some time. Plenty of articles that violate WP:NOT could contain (or even consist primarily of) information that could nonetheless be merged into an article on a more appropriate topic. This is why merging exists as an option on AFD... in all of these cases, though, as with notability, deletion must be preserved for cases when no appropriate target for merging exists, when existing content elsewhere is already superior, or for when merging is not a useful option for one of a number of other reasons. I also suggest you go back and read some of the older debates about notability... it has a long history, and a great deal of discussion went into the guidelines as they exist today. With so much discussion, you're unlikely to be able to argue them away by finding a point that has not already been discussed to death. --Aquillion 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave this for now, and try to come back to it when I feel more qualified. One way or the other. -- BenBildstein 02:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think non-notable articles when judged as such through vote, should not be deleted. Instead either replace the article (keeping the history) with a standard "Not Notable" page or move it to a "non-notable" section if keeping such articles around could clutter up the namespace. Some stuff may later turn out to be actually notable. I find it strange that the wikipedia keeps trivia on obscure tv shows and deletes many articles which seem to be important enough for _many_ people to argue about their deletion. You lose history and data when you delete, and the deletion process is fallible - sock puppets, censorship etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.62.101 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a serious problem with Wikipedia's current deletion policy that needs to be fixed with something like this. A huge problem is that the admins are elitist in determining that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes them. This is not acceptable when it's an article about a website that gets tens of thousands of regular viewers. Dozens of very popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to the internet traffic tracking service, had articles about them deleted by wikipedia.

In short, any website, blog or webcomic that a decent number of people may come to wikipedia to learn about deserves to not have the article on that website, blog or webcomic deleted and thus have nothing turn up from their search.

Wikipedia is fantastic in that it lets you find straightforward information about any topic. Wikipedia's contributors shouldn't be deleting articles about blogs and webcomics that recieve a decent amount of traffic just because they personally don't know about them. This is the definition of elitism. And it also weakens wikipedia's ability to serve as a useful straightforward reference on virtually any topic.

The single greatest strength of wikipedia is that it contains so much more information than brittanica and every other encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. This is a strength that should be emphasized and encouraged, not actively undermined by elitist "contributors" who decide that just because they personally haven't heard of a blog or a webcomic, means that the thousands that do don't matter, and that the dozens of visitors who stumble onto the blog or webcomic anew and who turn to wikipedia for information about it deserve to have nothing come back on the search.

I can't mention how many times I come to wikipedia nowadays to learn about a new site with a lot of users and contributors only to have no article come back because an elitist editor decided that the article on that site/blog/webcomic wasn't important enough to be included. Pushy elitist editors deleting articles left and right, this is a problem that's worse than ever.

I regularly contributed to wikipedia since it's inception. But I've stopped contributing as a result of this and have actively encouraged others to do so as well. And that's going to continue until wikipedia changes it's policy on deleting articles left and right.

People who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site deserve to find it. That's the entire point of wikipedia, to provide information on things that brittanica was too limited in scope to cover.

I adored the Wikipedia when it was first launched and I contributed to a number of articles, some extensively, and always anonymously. The Wikipedia then was a riot of contributors, each adding bits and pieces to the articles they were familiar with, with nary an admin or editor in sight. The Wikipedia was about articles and contributors. It was a fascinating source of information and the talk pages were often incredibly informative. You could have honest to god discussions there! You could build up an article with two or three anonymous contributors on the talk pages over days (or sometimes weeks). The Wikipedia WORKED.

The current Wikipedia is a very different beast--hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" who are more concerned with personal politics, the bureacracy of the beast, and minutae like "wikification" than contributing to articles. Nowadays the Wikipedia is all about the Wikipedia. Articles and contributors are caught in a vast bureaucratic clusterfuck. Articles in particular are "turf" to be fought over, to the great detriment of the people who actually contribute to them or use them. Edits are about notches in your belt, not adding content. Knowing an admin is more important than knowing your subject. Making an edit nowadays prompts threats and frequent reversions (or lockings) for no damned reason. It doesn't have to be controversial. You can correct the spelling of a species name and get chewed out for it. The talk pages, far from being about building consensus and putting togethr good articles, are bully pulpits for admins and connected editors. The NPOV and common courtesy have gone right out the window on talk pages, as shown by all the hyperbolic and downright paranoid rantings by admins here shows. "Hate site"? Please. I've seen hate sites, and Bagley/Byrn ain't it. "Jihad"? You must be joking.

Nowadays the Wikipedia community seems obsessed with the tangental side of the wiki: voting up admins, arguing about (usually pointless) policy, locking and unlocking articles, and pointless editing to enforce editorial unity ("This article has a trivia section--triva sections are discouraged because they're fun and interesting. Please consider rewriting the article to bury all these nifty facts under an avalanche of stilted faux academic prose in the main body of the article. Failing that, just delete the trivia, since traditional encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and we're bound to follow a fifteen-hundred year old dead tree paradigm, never mind that we're a twenty-first century hypertext website.") and stylistic monotony. The Wikipedia DOESN'T work. The Wikipedia is broken.

I'm inclined to think that the increasing toxicity of the community, coupled with power-drunk admins and people obsessed with the bureaucratic way of getting things done has finally gotten to the point where it drive more people away than come in.

There was a time when I logged over 1000 edits a month. Now I rarely bother to visit - not because there’s less work to do, but rather, because so much of what goes on there is unpleasant crap.

A frequently cited criticism of Wikipedia's Deletion policy is the manner in which an admin determines that certain topics aren't significant enough to merit an article and deletes the article written about the topic. As a result of this policy, several articles about popular webcomics and blogs that recieve tens of thousands of viewers according to Alexa, many of which won critical praise had articles about them deleted by wikipedia. <references/http://www.webcomicker.com/?p=33> <references/http://comixtalk.com/terrence_markswikipedia_and_y> It was viewed as not acceptable my many webcomic authors and readers that articles about websites and webcomics that have tens of thousands of regular viewers are deemed as candidates for deletion as a result of an admin who is personally unfamiliar with the comic. Others found it counter intuitive that because of Wikipedia's deletion policy, users who come to wikipedia looking for information about a popular blog or webcomic or site were unable to find it. This seemed to go against what was traditionally considered one of Wikipedia's greatest assests, it's ability to provide information on topics that professional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia brittanica were too limited in scope to cover. Others view as a sign that Wikipedia has become too hierarchical, closed, and overrun with "admins" and "editors" and Wikipedia itself is becoming burdened by the bureacracy of of it's editing staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.41.35 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why there should not be an article for every blog and webcomic that has a few thousand visitors should be pretty obvious: Wikipedia does not exist to promote anyone's website, products or services. I've tagged a few articles about webcomics for deletion because they failed to assert their notability in any way. Actually, I usually tag garage bands that have never toured, signed with any record label, or had their music played on radio station outside of their hometown. Then there are small businesses that have no significant national or international sales, and have received no media coverage. Then there are the biographies of a living person who has no notable accomplishments. I've tagged a number of articles about people who currently have a job, some kids and a dog. So? I've even seen articles about people in their teens and early 20s whose primary accomplishment in life so far has been graduating from high school or university! Whatever the case, the article is usually created by the owner/artist to promote themselves, since basically no one has ever heard of them. There are six billion living people, tens of millions of small businesses, millions of bands, and thousands of webcomics. If a webcomic becomes famous enough that its content starts to be quoted or imitated, fan sites appear, and merchandise starts to be sold in stores, such as Homestar Runner, then it deserves an article. If a webcomic is only read by you and other people who go to the author's university, its scope or appeal is too narrow to merit an article on Wikipedia. If we lower the requirements to allow a biography of any person who has ever had a family, or an article about every blog, comic, band and business that operates out of someone's basement, Wikipedia could easily have 100 million articles by 2009! That would really mess with search results, and make it difficult for readers to tell which businesses/bands/blogs/comics have national or international appeal, and which ones have an audience mostly composed of people who live in the artist's dorm.

Wikipedia policies sometimes need improvement, and everyone is welcome to participate in that discussion. As for claiming that articles about webcomics are being deleted by elitist Admins... don't you think it's a bit elitist of you to think that you can determine which webcomics are notable enough to deserve an article? If you're an expert on webcomics, please feel free to contribute content to the webcomic article. Maybe you could add a list of "popular" webcomics that might have appeal to fans of the genre, but aren't notable enough to deserve their own article yet. As for your perception that the articles are being removed at the whim of individual Admins, that's probably not true in most cases. With the exception of articles that are so obviously frivolous that they qualify for speedy deletion (patent nonsense, vandalism, etc), articles are proposed for deletion, usually by regular editors (since Administrators represent a tiny, um, elite fraction of all editors), and everyone in the world has at least 5 days to state an opinion. If, after 5 days, no one has made a strong case for why the article shouldn't be deleted, then an Administrator is free to delete the article because the people have spoken. What I'm saying is that articles are generally deleted at the will of the people, not the whim of a single Admin. If you feel that an Admin has acted inappropriately in deleting some article, please bring it to the Admin's attention, and if you're not satisfied with his or her response, then bring it to the community's attention. Maybe you're right and disciplinary action should be taken. But remember, an Admin isn't a vandal just because he deletes an an article that you think is notable! If they really are in the wrong, the rest of us are smart enough to come to that conclusion. There are more checks and balances on Wikipedia than there are in any government. Where else can absolutely anyone have a say in virtually any aspect of policy? There are some aspects of policy which I think could be more democratic but, for the most part, this is as good as it gets. DOSGuy (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

speedy keep

What's a speedy keep, where is it mentioned on this page? Pdbailey 16:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't exactly a formal thing, although I think some guidelines have been written about it somewhere. It's just when an AFD is closed early for one reason or another (most commonly when it doesn't have any 'good-faith' supporters, including the nominator--say, if someone nominated George W. Bush or Israel for deletion, it would be obvious the nomination was in bad faith, so it would be speedy-kept.) It's not generally supposed to happen in cases where there's any real dispute, though. Wikipedia:Speedy keep has some background... it's more of detail of how WP:AFD operates than a part of the deletion policy, though, so it isn't covered here. --Aquillion 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CSK. Basically, cases where we've determined that it is ok to close a deletion discussion early and keep the article/page. Examples include "nobody wants it deleted" and "proposal was made by someone who is not allowed to edit". It is a very limited set. GRBerry 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it was also used for World's largest airlines where I failed to fill in the form right and was given less that 24 hours to correct it. As such, I'd say it bears mention. Pdbailey 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When a deletion nomination is closed early as "keep", it's a speedy keep. This can be because of WP:CSK, WP:SNOW, or just because it's the right thing to do in a particular situation. If you disagree with one, you should contact the admin who closed it and discuss it with that person. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, does the person have to be an admin? Because it looks like the person who closed it wasn't, maybe I'm wrong. You can check at [1] Pdbailey 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, in practice anyone can close uncontroversial "keep" AfDs, although usually it's only admins and people who plan to become admins who do so. The point about speedy keeps is they should only be done when it is blatantly obvious the article will not get deleted or that the nomination itself is inappropriate for some reason. If they get disputed, the result will just be to reopen the AfD in which case the speedy keep was a waste of time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This whole process might be detailed in the policy. Pdbailey 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that non-admins who close AfDs without very clear reason to do so have sometimes been strongly criticized for it in their RfA's when they later apply to be administrators. DGG (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

was the policy followed?

I nominated an article for deletion and failed to fill in a reason (I could have sworn I had!) and a "speedy keep" ensued within 24 hours. This suggests to me that this encyclopedia is largely for the editing by the often editors, and I'm not invited, but maybe I'm not. Anyway, there is no firm 5 day policy on this page and it conflicts with the guide in this respect. Clarity might be nice Pdbailey 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Speedy keep above. An article can be speedy-kept if nobody, including the nominator, supports deletion. Speedy keeps aren't precident, so you can just open it again with a reason. The person who closed it could maybe have contacted you first, but it's not that big of a deal, since you can just fix it and re-open it. (Now, if it had anyone saying that the article should be deleted, that's different. But, anyway, it's easy to re-open it.) --Aquillion 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually reopened it and another editor closed it, maybe? As above, it's world's largest airlines. Pdbailey 17:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keeps can be done for various reasons other reasons so long as the speedy closure is obviously correct. Remember WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ANARCHY, either. When in doubt, go through the process. --Aquillion 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, I'm going to add again that putting them in the policy might make sense since (a) there appears to be policy in your mind regarding them and (b) not everyone knows that policy. Why have policy pages at all if the whole policy isn't going to appear on them? Pdbailey 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it isn't here is because it is more of a minor detail of how AFD works than a major part of deletion policy in its own right. The entire Deletion discussion section is only a few paragraphs long, and provides almost no details on specific processes or how articles are generally handled or anything like that; the appropriate place is WP:AFD itself. The issue was that you were looking here for up-close-and-personal information on how the process of AFD operates, when this article is really more of a thousand-foot view of the overall spirit of the entire policy on deletion. It is worth noting that the concept of speedy keeps has sometimes been controversal; editors will often call for one on controversal articles that they want kept. The intent of Wikipedia:Speedy keep was more to try and discourage people from calling for speedy keeps in any but the most obvious and straightforward cases than to codify it as a practice... that is likely why it remains unmentioned anywhere else. Normally, when a speedy keep is called for, it should be so obvious that no guidelines are necessary; in cases where there is any actual, good-faith dispute, short-circuiting discussion and debate should usually be discouraged. Your case was really more of a procedural keep than a traditional speedy one... the issue was basically that your nomination was malformed and incomplete. It doesn't call for all this discussion. --Aquillion 07:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When you have an article that's ten thousand feet, and you don't have a close up view, it is very jarring for the reader and severely reduces how well it can be understood. Maybe that's the point or it's okay to keep most editors in the dark about the process, I don't know. Pdbailey 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the deletion process here is arcane. People have tried to document most of it - look at the see also section of this policy page. Where would you have found a link to Wikipedia:Speedy keep? We can easily put a link to it there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, that sounds like a great idea. Pdbailey 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture articles

Notifications of proposed deletions

Proposed clarification of wording of the policy

Deleting non-notable content

speedy keep

was the policy followed?