Wikidata:Requests for comment/Speedy vs Regular deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There has been great discussion here but I don't think we can really pull anything policy worthy from it. The main points we should remember is that less deletion is being done now, things have slowed down and more care needs to be taken over deletions. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 21:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

The RFD environment is too fast paced. Lots of items get deleted that either don't need to be or shouldnt be. This could be down to admins not understanding the deletion policy or possibly not spending enough time when looking at RFD.

Compared with a regular wikipage it is very hard to tell if an item is totally empty due to so much data being stored in so many ways in so many languages. Thus when an item is totally empty the UI should make it easy for us to see this, for example next to the ID number simply put (empty item). Simple but effective.

• This is useful. But some empty items are vandalized and may be deleted by mistake. I think new empty items (without any statements) should be deleted by bot, so does item without statement and only link is deleted in client.--GZWDer (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Useful. just note that I am using old deletionhelper gardget that checks empty. --DangSunM (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's useful. However, sometimes it could be empty for a speedy deletion on any wikipedia and restaured for any other reason, and didn't notice that.- 你可以说 BlackBeast Do you need something? 04:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This would be useful. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This option will allow us to decide on a set of criteria for 'speedy deletion' (effectivly this is our entire deletion system) Items that do not fall under the speedy deletion criteria would have to be suggested for deletion and left open for discussion for a period before action could be taken.

Speedy Deletion:

• Empty item
• Clearly spam or advertising
• Broken redirect
• Falls under one of the exclusion criteria
• Clearly not notable biographic entry
• Vandalism or test page

Regular Deletion:

• Does not meet notability policy

• Empty item: See above. New empty items and items emptied by deletion in client should be speedy deleted (Hoo BotHoo man is doing this), but merged items should not.
• Clearly spam or advertising: I think a lot of companies are notable. Their articles are deleted in Wikipedia because they are promotional and not neutral point of view. But it is not easy to put promotional texts in items (except descriptions, which can easily be rewritten ), and en:WP:G11 is useless for judging spam. After arbitrary access launched, a lot of item about restaurants and hotels may be created and used in Wikivoyage (Wikidata:Requests for comment/VCards for Wikivoyage), so they should not be considered as spams.
• Broken redirect: Items redirected to deleted items can by deleted, as items are no longer deleted after merging.
• Falls under one of the exclusion criteria: Sure, but if someone have objection this should be discussed by regular deletion process.
• Clearly not notable biographic entry: Item being deleted by this criterion should meet all of these three requirement:
  1. The item should have zero sitelinks and backlinks. items with backlinks should only be discussed by regular deletion process.
  2. The item should have no statement with reliable, serious and publicly available references, nor any authority control properties.
  3. The item should have no credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, regular deletion process should be used.

--GZWDer (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment on what you said about Empty items, I agree, as merged items should have redirects created not be deleted. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think a total rewriting of the deletion policy is on order. I think another criteria should be added: uncontroversial deletions, things like accidently created properties/items, which would not be suitable for redirection. We could also consider numbering the criterias, for deletion summaries, or just keep them the way they are. Either way, I think this proposal should go forward. (Edit: Also another criteria for orphaned talk pages, as GZWDer pointed out) George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the list above are only meant to be for items :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 19:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For non-item I'm going to open another RFC. There're something unclear in deletion policy and after that RFC we can tag deletion policy as a real policy.--GZWDer (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What about where the creator of something requests its deletion? --Rschen7754 21:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think creator can request it for speedy deletion if:
  1. This meet a criterion above, which can be speedy-deleted.
  2. This item have no sitelink, and is used neither by other item nor in client.

--GZWDer (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, what's the difference on deleting based on "Clearly not notable biographic entry", and "Does not meet notability policy"? They both deal with notability. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these should probably be merged and just use WD:N ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 16:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, should be merged.- 你可以说 BlackBeast Do you need something? 04:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid any criteria defined as 'Clearly whatever'. I would try to replace it with an objective criteria. Otherwise, it could happen as in some wikipedias, where admins decide what is clearly irrelevant, thus creating endless conflicts. --Discasto (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Discasto:I have specified what is clearly not notable above.--GZWDer (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support this. I think it is a good criteria to deletion. Indeed is effectivly.- 你可以说 BlackBeast Do you need something? 04:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I support most of your "Criteria for speedy deletion" except for ''Clearly not notable biographic entry'' as that can be interpreted differently by different people and should use an RfD. Maybe you should make an official of sorts proposal for this at Wikidata:Criteria for speedy deletion or something similar. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Items for regular deletion would have a template added to their talk page adding the page to a maintance category. As with other projects a bot could notify the creator of the item so that they can defend their creation. The deletion of the item could then be discussed on the item talk page and after a period of time the item could either be deleted or left. Such discussions may look like those at Talk:Q18780030 and Talk:Q15304738

• That is useful, but these talk pages should be deleted after items deleted.--GZWDer (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the above, maybe just a notice on the talk page, then the actual discussion ocurring on the RFD page. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 19:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Following this up, I have drafted some possible templates at User:George.Edward.C/sandbox. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 19:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, it's a good helper to users. However I agree above, should be deleted after deletion.- 你可以说 BlackBeast Do you need something? 04:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion of orphan talk pages seems pretty obvious. However, I wonder whether it's possible to detect when an item already deleted is being recreated. I don't know how the 'Qxxx' identifier is created. Is it sequential? Or items created from the same wikipedia are assigned the same id? --Discasto (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Items for regular deletion would be nominated to a seperate RFD page (or vice verse and speedy deletions would go to a new location). As with other projects a bot could notify the creator of the item so that they can defend their creation. All discussion would take place on this page (or on sub pages). Again after a period of time the item could either be deleted or left.

• Support.--GZWDer (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Sounds good. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 20:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure whether making the process more complex by splitting pages is that useful. Normally, an admin should be able to distinguish between requests which require further discussion and requests which can be processed immediately even without the requester telling them. Vogone (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Most deletion discussions are pretty short. Only when scalability problems occur should we branch out.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main point here is that in some cases deletion discussions should not be as short as they currently are (ie. no discussion). Thus with longer discussions a branch out is a good idea. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what about the items deleted with no discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I like this. Even though most of the speedy deletions are quick, some could be defeted by users and take more time. And those should be separated to discuss that deletion.- 你可以说 BlackBeast Do you need something? 04:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 08:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Don't make things complicated here. The solution to the problem is not splitting the deletion pages, but instead making sure admins know what they're doing instead of deleting items recklessly. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that some admins who delete items in the manner described know exactly what they're doing... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

The creator and main contributors must be noticed BEFORE the item is deleted.

• Currently the deletion policy is a mess. We should later gain consensus for the whole deletion policy (for non-item page). This should not use common sense, as criteria for speedy deletion vary from wiki to wiki. Also we should discuss what Wikidata is not.--GZWDer (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a deletion policy; it's a proposal, which means that there has as yet been no demonstration of community support for its application. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for starting this RfC. Part of the problem seems to be that some admins have personal interpretations of the notability policy which are at odds both with what that policy actually says, and the wider community consensus of how it should be interpreted. That needs to be addressed, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This RFC is essential, but I think we should get more people involved, as it is an important matter. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 19:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• To make an updated eletion policy we need to discuss the notability policy first.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Clear notability guides enable "objective" decisions without personal interpretations. --Discasto (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A remark, first GZWDer, what wikidata is not is set to be a community standard, where were this discussed ? Second, we're talking about a deletion policy, I'm not sure we actually identified a real problem to solve first. Why do we have to do something if there is no actual real problem ? New usecases are regularly found for Wikidata, who is not mature enough yet imho to build a strong and precise border, for example see https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2015-March/005514.html. Let's not build problem if there is actually none. TomT0m ^(talk) 10:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that things are deleted that should not be deleted on a regular basis, mainly under claims that they are not notable. This is due to the speedy deletion process where it comes down to the opinion of a single admin. The solution is to force certain types of deletion to be open for longer before they are deleted thus discussion can happen and more eyes can look over the item. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure whether this has been discussed or not, but there don't seem to be any real mechanisms to draw attention of an item's contributors and browsers to the fact that the item is up for deletion/merging/splitting. Lots of items get deleted unnecessarily or inappropriately because the only ones likely discussing them other than the proposer (who naturally would be somewhat inclined toward deletion) are users who frequent the RfD page. I don't know that imposing a minimum discussion time is going to accomplish much if it's just going to be the same users participating. On Wikipedia, there is a prominent banner placed directly at the top of the page, bots deliver notifications to the page's creator and significant contributors, etc. I opened a case on WD:IWC back in July of last year disputing a merge action, which after seven months has still had zero input, while an item relevant to that case was placed on RfD, and was deleted in three days. I didn't make any edits during that time, but I'm sure I was checking in on the site, including the page for that specific item, and yet I still had no idea that it was up for deletion. Dancter (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a scandal, really. No need to ask why there is no opposition if even the creator is not noticed. And that's a problem to solve. TomT0m ^(talk) 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In fairness, I was neither the creator nor a significant contributor to the deleted item in my example, and while the item was linked as relevant to the case I filed, it was not listed as the actual subject of that case. Also, I finally noticed that there is indeed a proposal, focused primarily on the creation of a maintenance category, that addresses most of my concerns. I don't think it would be enough, though. There are some users who never notice that little notifications badge and never read talk pages. On Wikipedia, even among those who do navigate to a talk page, they were often prompted to do so by a banner on the main page. As much of an improvement as it would be to have creators notified and a category for active AfDs, I still would probably not have noticed had that system been in place in my example, despite being an interested party. Would the formation of a special, more visible class of properties/statements be too much?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dancter (talk • contribs) at 16:43, 12 March 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.