SourceWatch:Deletion policy

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you are proposing a page for deletion, please add it at SourceWatch:Votes_for_deletion. Before you do so, it would be wise to review the following. If you are going to delete a redirect, only, see the SourceWatch:Redirect policy and add comments or issues about that policy there.

See also

This is a draft policy, for discussion.

  • Review every link to an article, including those via redirects, before deleting it - does the article actually encapsulate some complex idea that can't be covered in the articles that link to it? Is it *necessary* to the articles that link to it? Would you want to rewrite these articles to make no reference to it?
  • If the title is wrong, can it be moved to a new title without loss of context? For instance, if the primary title is neoclassical philosophy, but the more familiar (and redirected) term is neoliberal, can the article simply be moved to neoliberal? If not, does the article say why not? Has the author considered and anticipated an alternative title, and described why it is or is not appropriate? If so, best to address this question in [[Talk:]] rather than deleting or renaming, as there is a rationale to address.
  • Is the article an orphan, or opening many links to unwritten articles? If so, why? Is it because it addresses a neglected area, or because it is irrelevant? Given the current number of articles, and the projected or desired number when the project is complete, is the number of open links disproportionate? For instance if the project is seeking 10,000 articles, eventually, and now has 2,000, then one would expect only 20% of the links to be closed, and 80% to be open. When there are 5,000 articles, however, one expects 50-50, and when there are 10,000, there should be no more than two or three open links per article, maximum. If there are more, that suggests that perhaps 10,000 articles simply isn't enough, if the material is otherwise coherent. Open links in general should not be a primary decision factor, but they can bolster a decision based on more important factors.
  • Does the concept appear to exist on Google? This should not be a primary decision factor, as google is not exactly good at analyzing propaganda, more like propagating it - see googlewash - and many terms don't show up in public discourse because they are libellous or attack powerful people who can retaliate, or expose concepts that are only discussed in small circles.
  • If the article fails all the above, list it at SourceWatch:pending_deletions for one week, to give anyone interested a chance to fix it's deficiencies, OR if it seems to have no chance, blank it, and replace with a notice linking to this page.
  • See SourceWatch:redirect policy for how to deal with redirects - leave them in place until the main article's title and scope are clear - at least a week.
  • Never do ANYTHING without notice, or the same day you think of it. That is anti-collaborative by definition.