User talk:Guy/Delete

I think this is much better than the current text, and even if I did have something I thought needed changing in it, recent events have proven to me that any dissenting opinion I have is moot. Excellent work. I hope it makes it in as is. --Max7238 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

Glad you liked it. I hope the edits just now don't compromise it for you. - Guy 05:28, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

Completely ruined and pointless compared to the original text, as well as the old policy. --Max7238 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

Considering the edits and compromises made between that comment of mine and this one... yeah, I agree to at least some extent. I doubt consensus can be reached on this topic. Some users seem to want to empower admins to cancel seemingly any deletion they want. Other users seem to want the original contributor to be able to delete their contributions under circumstances the prior group does not appear willing to tolerate. I attempted to reach a middle ground; a compromise. If the current quote is the final result, my attempt has ended in failure. - Guy 12:39, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

---

I really like most this text, and I'd enthusiastically support it were it not for the following two quibbles I have with it:

Firstly: The third paragraph seems to condone saving personal copies of pages that have been deleted. However, the fifth paragraph says "It is considered courteous to avoid verbatim and near-verbatim recreations of content deleted by this criteria". Does that include userpages? Because I have personally saved a large number of deleted articles as userpages that are, I can't stress this enough, available to the public, and so far my practice has not been controversial, despite those pages I've saved being arguably verbatim or near-verbatim recreations. I would like for this issue to be clarified.

Second: From the fourth paragraph, "Editing the content page for the sole purpose of thwarting a deletion request is often regarded negatively." I don't like this sentence because I feel like it's too vague in application to be included in an official policy.

Other than that, great work! Based Quincy (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

For the first point, I specifically meant the main namespace, but you're right, that's confusing. So I removed it.

For the second point, it's... difficult. When someone attempted to do that it was received negatively, and I can see why someone would consider it a dick move. I felt the policy should address that without strictly forbidding it. But I've removed it anyway; the criteria is already too verbose without it.

Thanks for the feedback. I wish all criticism could be so precise and clear. - Guy 05:28, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

I would remove the part about speedy deletions. Why? Since speedy deletions are already their own policy criteria, and they don't need to interact or even be mentioned. Otherwise, it seems pretty good. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

In an ideal world, you're right, this clarification needn't be made. There is however a lot of precedent for speedy deleting solely for user request (or "G7"). Mentioning that speedy deletion is not inherently warranted for this criteria seems important considering the large amount of precedent that contradicts such a claim.

Unless it's important to remove that part, I believe retaining it would prevent more problems than it would cause. - Guy 10:30, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

I've been thinking about it. I dislike the addition made by GD regarding "cancelling" a deletion. As written it lets an admin cancel any and every deletion request then cite controversy as the reason, even if there was only one dissenting voice (the admin's own). We've already seen an admin do something this, and insinuate he would do so with every such request.

If that's the intended way of doing things, then we might as well not even have this criteria at all under the current admin team. At best it will come down to users specifically asking a "delete friendly" admin on their talk pages and hoping a "delete opposed" admin doesn't see the {{delete}} for 14 days. That isn't any policy I want to have a hand in creating. - Guy 11:24, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

Canceling is just better terminology that "If a deletion appears to be controversial, an admin is entirely warranted in choosing not to fulfill a deletion requested for this criteria alone", or what where you trying to write? --Green Dragon (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

From my perspective, "canceling" specifically means removing the {{delete}} without discussion (though presumably at least an edit summary).

From my perspective, "choosing not to fulfill a deletion" means only inaction, and does not involve removing the {{delete}} without discussion and at least an appearance of majority opinion. I would have assumed removing a {{delete}} would require at least some use of the talk page, but in retrospect I should have consciously considered otherwise.

I now realize this miscommunication may have existed since the start of this page, which fuels my concern the implementation of the proposed text. Even without miscommunication this text did not seem like it would reach consensus, let alone with it.

I also now realize that the entire policy (as opposed to merely this criteria) does not specifically mention when a {{delete}} should be removed, relying instead on the assumption that if no criteria are met it can be removed. That too seems like a flaw to me, but is perhaps not as important right now. - Guy 15:49, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

Then, write this out how you intended it to be written and then we can discuss it. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

• bump*   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   12:35, 24 October 2019 (MDT)