Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think all words on word lists should be here. All those words and their definitions should be on Simple English Wiktionary, but many of them are not encyclopedic. Therefore, whether they should be moved there (meaning deleted here) or placed on both should not be dependent on them being on a word list, but should be dependent on whether or not they are encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Simple talk#Project direction for related discussion. --Cromwellt|talk 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wiktionary should not exist. Simple English is not a language. -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Simple English Wiktionary has as much right to exist as Simple English Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are of separate languages. If simple English is not a language, SEWikipedia should not exist either. For more explanations of its validity, see the simple talk link above and Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia, where you have still not answered my arguments. I welcome any response, even after all this time. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Immediate deletion

I'm renaming "immediate deletion" into "fast deletion", as the word "fast" is more simpler than the word "immediate". If anyone objects, feel free to comment.--TBCΦtalk? 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's going to be changed to that, why not just call it speedy deletion so that there's some consistency across wikis? J Di 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, "Quick deletion" sounds better as "quick" is a BE850 word whereas "fast" and "immediate" are not.--TBCΦtalk? 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like the sound of "Quick deletion", but if it's a BE 850 word, I guess it's the best choice. The category changes I made earlier are going to have to be corrected... J Di 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I also think "quick deletion" sounds slightly better. btw the regular deletion time is actually 7 days, not 5, unless you all think 7 is too long, then we can perhaps agree to shorten it to 5 days. Blockinblox - talk 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfD duration

One part of this says 5 day discussions on RfDs, another says 7 days. I've always kept them for 7, has this been revised? Archer7 - talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. "Five to seven days, or until there is enough agreement on what to do." That makes sense. Archer7 - talk 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A4 - notability

As writen, the rule A4 only applies to 4 specific things (and sub groups of those 4). Would it not be better to expand it to any subject of an article? Right now, to delete an article on a sport no one has ever heard of (say, Penguin bashing for distance which is a video game and not a sport) we shouldnt actually use notability as a valid reason because it is not people, companies, websites or groups (people a second time). By shifting it to something like "The subject the article is about is not notable" we leave it open to any subject someone might want to consider posting. Using "for example, a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content" provides more information of what it applies to but does not limit the rule from being applied to any specific topic that might come up. -- Creol(talk) 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that A4 should be expanded to include any subject of the article. Wodup 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A4 after a quick deletion

Should A4 be altered to indicate that if there's been a previous QD, the next step should be RfD? It seems that that is already what users agree, but it's not in the policy. It could read "...If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous quick deletion or RfD, the article should be discussed at RfD instead..." Wodup 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)