Forum:Reforming the deletion process

Currently, as it stands now, the deletion process on The Sims Wiki is very informal. Editors that simply wish for a page to be deleted can slap a Delete tag on the page. Supposedly deletion discussions can be held at Category talk:Candidates for deletion, but this is a very unusual place to hold a deletion discussion, and some editors may find it confusing to use. There is also no set time limit for the discussion, so a page could in theory be tagged with Delete and never actually be deleted because the deletion discussion would dry up and be forgotten, and nobody knows what should be done with the page.

Speedy deletion is another thing that needs to be discussed. To clarify, the term speedy deletion refers to the process of deletion being speedy, not the speed at which the page is deleted. Speedy deletion should be used for specific and clear situations where the page can be deleted, and speedy deletion is used when there is no need to have a deletion discussion, because there is no doubt as to whether or not the page should be deleted. However, our speedydelete template does not even require the editor to provide a reason for deletion, which is problematic, because speedy deletion must have a valid reason provided for deletion; failing to do so otherwise allows pages to be deleted without discussion, potentially going against consensus.

This is further amplified by the fact that our pages surrounding the deletion process on the wiki are either non-existent or poorly organized.

As such, I'm proposing some changes to the deletion process, which will require community consensus, changes to our templates and project pages, and a clearer definition of what and when pages can be deleted.

Criteria for speedy deletion
I suggest that we change our speedy deletion process to something not unlike that of Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy. Wikipedia uses a list of criteria that can be applied to pages that meet it; a page that does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria must use other venues. This prevents editors from attempting to speedily delete a page that would otherwise require a discussion; if it's not obvious, it shouldn't be deleted right away. Each criteria has an abbreviation, usually comprised of a letter followed by a number. The letter indicates the category the criteria is located in, and they are usually namespace specific. Wikipedia has a long list of criteria, so I hope I can trim it down to something that will suit our wiki appropriately.

In all cases, at least one criteria must be specified, or else the speedy deletion nomination is void. Editors may add additional comments to further explain their reasoning for speedy deletion, but at least one criteria must still apply.

General criteria
"General" speedy deletion criteria apply to any page in any namespace, provided that they meet the criteria appropriately.

This criteria includes any page that is comprised of nothing but incoherent or gibberish material. It does not cover poor writing, personal attacks, hoaxes, other kinds of vandalism, things written in another language, or poorly translated material. It does not apply to pages in the user namespace. In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply.
 * G1. Patent nonsense

Applies to any page created solely to test functions on The Sims Wiki or MediaWiki. Does not apply to pages in the user namespace, subpages of Project:Sandbox, or template "/test" pages.
 * G2. Test page

This criteria applies to any page that is blatantly and undeniably a work of vandalism, or is a blatant hoax and is obviously untrue. Note that The Sims game rumors exists for new additions to The Sims series that have at least one valid source. G3 also applies to redirects left behind after cleaning up page-move vandalism. This criteria does not apply to pages in the user namespace, unless the criteria is being applied to redirects created after page-move vandalism.
 * G3. Vandalism and/or hoax

This applies to any page that was recreated after the community agreed that it should be deleted via a discussion. If this is the case, the discussion does not need to be restarted; as consensus already exists for the deletion, the page should be deleted again, and create protected (AKA "salted") if it is repeatedly recreated despite numerous warnings. This criteria does not apply to pages that have been undeleted following a change in community consensus, or pages that have been undeleted and moved to userspace. It also doesn't cover pages deleted via proposed deletion (Mentioned further down this thread) or another speedy deletion criteria (In which case, the previous speedy deletion criteria may be used if it still applies).
 * G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted after a deletion discussion

This applies to any page created by a user in violation of their block, or by a user that violates an editing restriction placed onto them. This applies to any pages created after the block/restriction had been applied; pages created before the block/restriction are not eligible. This does not apply to any page that may be useful or are still widely used, such as a transcluded template.
 * G5. Creations by blocked users in violation of their block, or by a user in violation of editing restrictions

This applies to any technical deletions that are uncontroversial by nature. Examples include:
 * G6. Housekeeping/uncontroversial maintenance
 * Deleting disambiguation pages that list only one article and have "(disambiguation)" in their title.
 * Deleting redirects or other pages that are blocking page moves. Please be aware of the proper procedures in merging or preserving the page history if the page that is in the way has a non-trivial history.
 * Deleting pages created unambiguously in error or in the wrong namespace. Do not use this for fanon created in the article namespace, see A3 instead.

The author of any page, if made in good faith, may request that the page be deleted with this criteria. To qualify, the page must not have received substantial edits by others. If the sole author blanks a page other than a userpage, a category page, or a talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request.
 * G7. Author request

This includes subpages without a parent page, talk pages with no corresponding subject page, file pages without a corresponding file, and redirects to invalid targets (such as redirect loops, or a redirect to a non-existent title). It excludes archive pages, user pages, user talk pages, or any page that may be useful to the wiki, such as the talk page for a deleted page that contains important discussion worth archiving.
 * G8. Pages dependent on a deleted or non-existent page

Wikia Staff may occasionally intervene to delete pages, usually because of a violation of the Terms of Use or a DMCA Takedown Notice. Such deletions should not be reversed as this may cause legal troubles. This criteria should be applied to pages that are recreated after staff deletion. Administrators should check the deleted revisions and compare them to the one that has been recreated; if they are identical or similar, it should be deleted under this criteria. G9 does not apply to pages that have been deleted by VSTF, Wikia Helpers, or any deletions made by staff that were intended to simply remove vandalism, and not from a legal complaint.
 * G9. Wikia Staff action

Pages deleted by Wikia Staff due to a DMCA notice should not be restored. Inquiries about the deletion (or a counter-notice, if applicable) should be sent to. If you would like to file a DMCA takedown notice, please see Special:DMCARequest, or email the email address above. The Sims Wiki is not in any position to provide legal advice or to carry out legal proceedings.

Any pages that are comprised of legal threats, personal attacks, libel, or harassment are considered "attack pages" and qualify under this criteria. This does not apply to legitimate pages that have simply been vandalized; please check the page history and find a neutral version to revert to. As a courtesy to readers, please replace the contents of the entire page with the deletion tag in order to hide offending material from immediate view.
 * G10. Attack page

This applies to pages that qualify as spam under Help:Spam. More specifically, it refers to any page that promotes a subject, group, or entity, and is not written in a neutral tone. A page that describes the subject in a neutral tone does not qualify under this criteria. A page that describes the subject in a neutral tone but is irrelevant to The Sims Wiki qualifies under G12 instead.
 * G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

This applies to any page that is outside the scope of The Sims Wiki. This includes articles about people, companies, or entities that have nothing to do with The Sims; fanon pages that have absolutely nothing to do with The Sims; and files that are not helpful to The Sims Wiki (such as a copyrighted logo of a company that has nothing to do with The Sims or the wiki). G12 does not apply to templates (unless they evidently would not see use on the wiki; if in doubt, start a deletion discussion instead), userpages, maintenance or tracking categories, and files uploaded by users that are used in fanons or userpages.
 * G12. Irrelevant to The Sims Wiki

This applies to text pages that use content incompatible with Wikia's licenses, and have no credible assertion of fair use or public domain. Pages should only be deleted entirely if there is no content in the page history worth salvaging; if there is, the infringing revisions should be selectively deleted.
 * G13. Unambiguous copyright infringement

This applies to pages that are written largely or entirely in a language other than English. The creator of the page should be directed to the Language Portal to find a wiki that is in the proper language for them to create the page in. This does not apply to userpages or sandbox pages.
 * G14. Page written in a different language

Articles
These criteria only applies to articles in the main namespace.

This applies to articles that lack sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. A good example would be: "He is a funny man with a red car. He loves to laugh." Context is different from content; see A2 below. A1 does not apply to poorly written articles or content written in another language. Don't apply this tag moments after a page's creation, as this will bite the creator. This criteria is also not a substitute or replacement for stub tagging, or for an editor to actually expand on and improve the article.
 * A1. No context

This applies to articles that are completely blank, or contain only spaces, external links, categories, template tags, images, and "See also" sections. It also includes a simple rephrasing of the title without any new information, attempts to communicate with the subject in the title, questions or comments that should have been made in the forums or the appropriate talk page, or a simple framework or template of an article. This does not include poor writing, things written in another language, pages that contain only an infobox (unless that infobox has nothing), and stubs that have context. Again, don't apply this tag moments after a page's creation.
 * A2. No content

This applies to fanon pages that are created in the article namespace. The fanon should be moved to the correct namespace if possible, and if the author persistently creates fanon in the article namespace despite numerous warnings, any future fanon they create can be deleted under this criteria. If a non-admin moves a fanon article into the fanon namespace, the redirect left behind should be tagged with G6 or R1 instead.
 * A3. Misplaced fanon article

This applies to articles depicting subjects that do not exist in-game or anywhere under The Sims or Electronic Arts brand. This includes articles about Sims that do not exist, articles about locations that do not exist, real life people that do not exist, etc. This does not apply to misplaced fanon articles; when in doubt, try to move the article to the fanon namespace first, and then use this criteria if the author of the page continuously recreates the page in the main namespace despite warnings on their talk page, or when it becomes evident that they are trying to create the page intentionally in the mainspace.
 * A4. Does not exist

This applies to any recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, and does not expand upon or include new or improved information within any existing articles on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include articles that were split due to size or to organize material, nor does it apply to disambiguation pages. When in doubt, a redirect may be better than deletion; this criteria should be used if it seems likely that the redirect will be eligible for deletion.
 * A5. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic

Redirects
These criteria only apply to redirect pages.

This applies to redirect pages from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category, Template, Project, Help, and Game guide namespaces. Shortcuts are excluded.
 * R1. Cross-namespace redirects

This applies to redirect pages created from implausible typos or misnomers. It does not apply if the typo is frequent or common, and does not apply to pages created merely as the result of a page move.
 * R2. Implausible typos

Files
These criteria only apply to file pages.

This applies to any duplicate file, or lower-quality versions of a file where a better version already exists. In the latter case, if the files are in the same format, editors should upload a new version of the existing file rather than uploading a new file with a different name.
 * F1. Redundant

Applies to any files that are corrupt or empty, or contain unnecessary non-metadata information.
 * F2. Corrupt, missing or empty file

This applies to any file that has been uploaded over one (1) year ago and is not currently being used on any pages. Files that are currently in use on even just one page are not eligible for this deletion criteria, unless it is being used inappropriately. Also, if the file is linked to in a reasonable manner (such as for a talk page discussion), then this criteria is not applicable, even if it isn't actually used on any pages.
 * F3. Unused file

This is meant for files that are neither image, video, nor sound files; are not currently being used in any articles; and have no foreseeable placement in any article. Files such as .doc, .pdf, .html, .xls, .zip, etc. are rarely image, video, or sound files. Note that this list of files is not exhaustive, and that a file extension alone is not a reason enough to speedily delete. This criteria focuses primarily on file content.
 * F4. Useless non-media files

This applies to any fanon files that belongs to a user that has been indefinitely blocked, or blocked for more than one year. "Fanon file" is defined as any file that was uploaded for the sole purpose of being used on a fanon page; files that are used for other purposes, such as within an article, are not eligible for this criteria. If the block is lifted or expires, the user is welcome to request that their fanons be undeleted on the administrators' noticeboard, barring any editing restrictions.
 * F5. Fanon file belonging to an indefinitely blocked user, or a user that has been blocked for more than one year

This applies to files where appropriate licensing information has not been provided and have been tagged with No license for at least seven days. The uploader should have also been notified and given seven days to respond as well. Administrators should check the upload summary, file information page, and the image itself for a source before deleting.
 * F6. Lack of licensing information

Userpages
These criteria only apply to pages in the user namespace.

Any user may request that a page in their userspace be deleted under this criteria. This criteria does not apply for user talk pages. Pages that have been moved are generally not acceptable (To prevent users from simply moving pages into their userspace and then deleting them), unless the page was only moved around within their own userspace.
 * U1. User request

This is for userpages of users that do not exist (check Special:ListUsers). This does not apply to the userpages of IP editors, redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, the previous username of a renamed user, or a global userpage template for a VSTF member, Wikia Helper, or Staff member.
 * U2. Nonexistent user

Categories
These criteria only apply to pages in the category namespace.

This applies to any category page that does not have any pages listed under it for at least seven days. Note that it is possible for pages to be listed in a category even when the category page itself doesn't exist. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, or project/maintenance categories that by nature may become empty (such as Category:Pages with citation errors).
 * C1. Empty category

Templates
These criteria only apply to pages in the template namespace. When tagging a template for deletion, wrap the deletion template with tags to stop it from being transcluded.

This applies to any template page that are unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy, such as speedy deletion templates for criteria not listed as acceptable criteria.
 * T1. Misrepresentations of policy

This applies to any template page that was originally created for use in an author's fanon that has not been used in over a year, such as a navbox that lists fanon characters in a story or family. The author(s) of the template should be notified at least one month in advance of the speedy deletion nomination.
 * T2. Unused fanon template

Fanon
These criteria only apply to pages in the fanon namespace.

This criteria applies to any fanon article that has been tagged with Fanon-stub for at least one year, and the author has been notified at least one month in advance of the speedy deletion nomination. If the author does not improve the fanon within a reasonable period of time, the fanon can be tagged under this criteria. Fanon tagged with Fanon-uc are generally not eligible under this criteria, unless it is clear that the author is not actually building their fanon and the fanon remains in a state of poor quality for a long period of time after the template was added.
 * FA1. Fanon of poor quality that has not been improved by the author(s)

This criteria applies to any fanon article that contains so little content that it is eligible for deletion. It is similar to A1 and A2. If the fanon article is longer than stub length and contains some context, it is not eligible for this criteria and should be tagged with Fanon-cleanup or Fanon-stub instead. Like A1 and A2, this tag should not be applied moments after a page's creation.
 * FA2. Fanon of very poor quality

This applies to any fanon page that exceeds what would be considered acceptable on The Sims Wiki. Examples include fanon whose only purpose is to describe WooHoo; fanon pages that describe WooHoo in intricate detail; fanon that go into excessive detail about self-harm and assault; etc. Merely referencing scenes of WooHoo, assault, self-harm, etc. is not enough to warrant deletion; instead, the fanon should be tagged with Adult. When in doubt, tag with Adult and consult the fanon author on their talk page.
 * FA3. Grossly inappropriate fanon

This applies to any fanon page that belongs to a user that has been indefinitely blocked, or blocked for more than one year. If the block is lifted or expires, the user is welcome to request that their fanons be undeleted on the administrators' noticeboard, barring any editing restrictions.
 * FA4. Fanon created by an indefinitely blocked user, or a user that has been blocked for more than one year

This applies to any fanon page that was created by an unregistered user and has been tagged with Fanon-anon for at least 72 hours. If the fanon is claimed by a registered user, it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion under this criteria, even if claimed after the 72-hour window.
 * FA5. Fanon created by an unregistered user who has not created an account and claimed their fanon within 72 hours

Requests for deletion
Instead of our current system, where deletion discussions take place in an unhealthily named Category talk:Candidates for deletion, deletion discussions for pages should be more robust and formal, and the deletion process should be better linked to the pages they affect. Here's what I propose:


 * All deletion discussions get their own page, which should be a subpage of, say, Project:Requests for deletion. So, if I nominated Bella Goth for deletion, the deletion discussion will take place at Project:Requests for deletion/Bella Goth. If it gets nominated a second time, the first discussion page will not be overwritten, and instead the second discussion will take place at Project:Requests for deletion/Bella Goth 2.
 * Deletion discussions for pages in other namespaces use the full page name, including the namespace prefix. For example, if I nominated Template:Goth family for deletion, the discussion page will be located at Project:Requests for deletion/Template:Goth family.
 * Deletion discussions should last a minimum of 7 days. During that time, a template will be placed on both the page that is being deleted and the talk page of that page notifying readers and editors about the discussion. The template must provide a direct link to the discussion page.
 * After the seven day period is up, if there is consensus to delete, the page will be deleted; the deletion summary should provide a link to the deletion discussion page. The talk page of the deleted page should also be deleted as well, unless it contains discussion that is valuable to the wiki or is worth archiving. If there is no consensus to delete, the page will not be deleted, the deletion templates will be removed, and a template that makes note of the previous deletion discussion will be placed on the talk page. This is to make it easier for editors to see previous discussions if they had already happened. A deletion discussion may also come to the consensus that the page should be merged into another page, or moved to a different title; in those cases, the template that makes note of the deletion discussion should be placed on the talk page(s) of the affected articles as well.

The process of determining consensus is otherwise the same as our existing system: consensus is determined by the strength of arguments and not by votes or quantity.

Proposed deletion
Sometimes there may be cases where an article's deletion is uncontroversial, but there are no valid CSD criteria for it, so it cannot be deleted through that venue. In such cases, it is easier to forego the red tape of RFD and nominate the article for proposed deletion, or PROD, instead.

PROD is somewhat similar to our existing process in that the nominator may simply add a tag, along with a reason as to why they think the article should be deleted. If nobody objects to the nomination within seven days, the article may be deleted if the closing administrator agrees with the nomination. If anyone removes the PROD tag, however, it is ineligible for PROD indefinitely, and the PROD tag may not be reinstated. After that, if the article is still ineligible for CSD, it must go through RFD instead. A tag should be placed on the talk page of the article to inform editors that a PROD nomination was rejected and that it cannot be PRODed again.

PROD only applies to articles in the mainspace and in the Game guide namespace. It does not apply to redirects or pages in any other namespace.

If a PRODed article has already been deleted, a non-administrator may request at the administrators' noticeboard to have it undeleted. This would be considered an objection to the PROD, and the article will become ineligible for PROD like usual.

If an article has previously been tagged for CSD, it is still eligible for PROD. However, if an article has been nominated for RFD and the consensus was to keep the article, it is ineligible for PROD. PROD and RFD may not be used together; only one or the other may happen on the same article at any given time.

Undeletion
Pages that are deleted under G7, A1, A2, F3, F5, U1, T2, FA1, FA2, FA4, FA5, or a PROD, can be undeleted upon request at the administrators' noticeboard. If the request has a valid reason for undeletion, and the deleted page does not contain any inappropriate material that must remain deleted, the page can be undeleted without or with little further discussion. Pages deleted after an RFD need consensus before they can be undeleted, however. Users may also request that pages deleted under most criteria, or after a PROD or RFD, be undeleted and "userfied" (Moved into their userspace), provided that the requester will improve upon the pages in question. Pages that have been deleted due to Terms of Use violations, or are grossly inappropriate, should never be undeleted, not even to the userspace.

Removing deletion tags
Anyone is free to remove a PROD tag, but CSD tags may not be removed by the author of the page (exceptions include G7, U1, and FA5 (if the author has created an account and used it to remove the tag)). Also, RFD tags may not be removed by anyone if an RFD for the page is still open. The RFD must be closed before the tag can be removed. RFD tags can also be removed if there is no active RFD page for the tagged page in question.

Final thoughts
The suggestions I made above are not final and they can be changed if the community has consensus for it. Making our deletion process clearer will encourage discussion, prevent admins from simply deleting pages on a whim without an agreed-upon criteria, and will make things more organized. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 15:57, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

EDIT 29/03/2017 I have added the section, please comment on that as well. The rules are pretty much identical to how Wikipedia does it. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:13, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Discussion begins below this line.

I agree that a change to our deletion process would be good. There should be a formal standard for putting pages up for deletion, taking pages out of consideration for deletion either after consensus or vote in opposition or after a sufficient length of time, and an accepted criteria for speedy deletion. The only real issue I have with this proposal is the use of the shorthand "code" reasons for speedy deletion (i.e. G1 = patent nonsense, G2 = test pages, etc)... my concern is that a given page may be tagged for deletion with a given shorthand code but no explanation of what the code stands for or how the article fits it. The shorthand seems very forbidding to new users who may be unfamiliar with the codes, and seems like something added that, to my mind, doesn't yield any significant benefit. Aside from that, it looks good and very well thought-out. --  LiR talk · blog  ·  contribs 05:08, March 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * Re. the point about shorthand codes: they can (and should) be followed by the name of the CSD criteria. For example, "G3: Vandalism and/or hoax" instead of just "G3". The deletion template and deletion summary should also provide a link to the relevant page and section, such as The Sims Wiki:Criteria for speedy deletion. That's how Wikipedia does it, at least. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 18:16, March 20, 2017 (UTC)