Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Storage of deleted articles

Currently, the section Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Access to deleted pages includes a sentence stating that deleted articles remain in the database (at least temporarily) - my emphasis. WikiBlame tells me that this was inserted in 2008 with Special:Diff/241376527.

The qualifier at least temporarily can be read to imply that deleted articles will be permanently erased after a retention period, which is contrary to my understanding that deleted pages/revisions are kept in the database indefinitely. I’m therefore proposing to remove that qualifier (my reason for starting this discussion rather than making the edit boldly is because I wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct/that there wouldn’t be any other problems with making this edit).

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the WMF do not guarantee that deleted revisions will remain available in perpetuity. The likelihood of deleted revisions ever being permanently deleted is massively lower in 2023 than it was in 2008, but at least theoretically still possible. The original version of Oversight (pre 2009) also permanently deleted the relevant revisions, although it's unlikely that was what was being referred to. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Since it would be an extraordinary event, maybe we should still remove that part. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Meh. It's still accurate, and I see no reason to increase the level of expected retention. We know it's probably sticking around... but do we want to promise that? Don't think that's our place as a community: we don't own the infrastructure. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should just replace it with footnote [c] from Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be better to copy that footnote here and add it to the end of the text quoted above, giving it context, rather than replace it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Possibly also it might be worth speaking to the devs to confirm that statement is still accurate nearly 17 years later. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve emailed answerswikimedia.org with the query and a link to this discussion, so hopefully someone from the WMF will be able to provide the latest information. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. --brion 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) 19 January 2007

Emphasis and ALLCAPS as per the original.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is what we are discussing directly above. A smart kitten has emailed to see if this 17-year-old statement is still accurate. It would seem foolish to do anything before we get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a reference to edit histories being quite unreliable in the very early days of the encyclopedia (I believe before around 2003) see WP:UuU. It may be technically correct but unnecessary in practice. --Trialpears (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I vaguely remember there was a policy decision to never flush deleted revisions due to the CC-by-SA attribution requirement. But that could just be leaky neurons conflating different discussions. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You find all sorts of weird crap if you look through the primordial database. For example, WP:VPT#* in comment table? that I found yesterday. What's really weird is that revision_ids aren't (weren't?) assigned in monotonically increasing order. Step through the earliest history of the WP:UuU in chronological order. The revision ids go:

• 291430
• 385544927
• 302608
• 13692247
• 15927838

My brain hurts. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Heh, turns out this is documented

Note that while rev_id almost always increases monotonically for successive revisions of a page, this is not strictly guaranteed as importing from another wiki can cause revisions to be created out of order.

RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly what happened. —Cryptic 01:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've had an email response from the WMF as follows:

I've heard back from Legal, who noted that they do not see a need to change the wording in that section of the deletion policy at the moment.

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

See also phab:T343933 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"Other issues" section

The first image in "Other issues" section has wrong caption. This type of page is also seen by normal users. Sarangem (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No, non-admins will not see the "view X deleted revisions" link. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Want

We shouldn't be so eager to delete stuff, it makes people not want to edit Wikipedia. I've heard this from so many of my friends, too. Benjamin (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? Primefac (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations. HouseBlaster^talk 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What about if the page title is extremely long?

What about if the page title is extremely long? Abhiramakella (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reason to delete a page. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Then you'd ask a WP:MOVE. If "extremely long" means "the software breaks", you head to WP:VPT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It can be reason to delete a redirect. See, for example, Categorisation of long-term insurance business for corporation tax purposes in the United Kingdom (RFD), or Vladislaus IV of Poland, Sweden, Gothenland and Vandalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and Moscow (RFD), or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Kitts and Nevis (RFD) - the last of which, impressively, manages to break the formatting both at the redlink itself and without action=edit. But yes, if there were content there, it wouldn't be reason to delete that, just the awkward title. —Cryptic 08:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

However, some very long titles can make good redirects, for example When the pawn hits the conflicts he thinks like a king what he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight And he'll win the whole thing 'fore he enters the ring There's no body to batter when your mind is your might and Adelgundes de Jesus Maria Francisca de Assis e de Paula Adelaide Eulália Leopoldina Carlota Micaela Rafaela Gabriela Gonzaga Inês Isabel Avelina Ana Estanislau Sofia Bernardina. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The second-longest title in mainspace (by byte count; tied for third by number of characters), Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles, isn't even a redirect, and is an amusing read. —Cryptic 18:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

In the "Speedy deletion" section, please add the work ....so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia such that they have no....

Reason

Some people may be confused of the statement, including myself.

102.40.79.94 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: adding "such" there would be grammatically incorrect and confusing, the current "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion." is fine Cannolis (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Striking blocked users at AfD?

Isn't it customary to strike blocked users, such as sockpuppets, within AfD discussions? I understand that the AfD discussion can continue even if they are the nominator, but we generally strike their comments regardless. @Beccaynr @Another Believer Cielquiparle (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: I feel like I see comments by blocked editors crossed out often, but maybe that's something I should leave to admins. I didn't mean to overstep, and I gave permission for Beccaynr to remove the strike. Makes no difference to me. I also asked at User_talk:MER-C#AfD_comment, since I saw MER-C comment on the block in other AfD discussions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

According to what appears to be the relevant part of the Talk page guidelines, that I linked to in that discussion, Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. Previously, when I have attempted to clean up after sock-related !votes, I recall having strikes unstruck because I did not follow this precisely. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr That's what AB did – strike the comment instead of removing it, with a short explanation following. Can you please restore the strike? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no indication that I can find that the comment was made by [a] blocked [sock puppet] of [a] [user] editing in violation of a block or ban. Perhaps MER-C can offer some guidance here; based on my past experience with having strikes unstruck when I thought the TPO provision applied to editors socking generally (and there being no indication socking is involved here), I would prefer to rely on my understanding of the guideline and experience, and wait for additional guidance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's customary to strike people who are using more than one account in the discussion, so they don't get counted twice, and users who are sockpuppets of blocked/banned users, since they are not allowed to edit. A common mistake in this context is to strike users who are subsequently blocked for a reason other than having a prior account. It is a common mistake, but it's still a mistake. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification @Zzuuzz. Perhaps it's enough then to just add a comment after their comment making it clear that they were subsequently blocked? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That is also customary, perhaps (optionally) explaining why they were blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Commenting on this case - I think this user is a UPE spammer, that's why I blocked them. The problem I described here still exists and probably has become worse. I don't particularly mind whether their comments are struck, but UPE spamming elsewhere does have a negative impact on whether the vote/comment is in good faith. UPE spammers are more likely to be socks too. MER-C 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If thje user's blocked as a LTA or a sock or a UPE then yes; if they're just a normal user who got blocked for a totally unrelated thing I would say no. jp×g🗯️ 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If the sockpuppet has started an AfD and there are no other delete comments it can be speedily closed as per WP:Speedy keep Applicability criteria 4, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)