Candidates For Deletion/Archive01

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Deletion policies

Right now, a whole bunch of articles are being deleted. These are for the most part empty articles, or 'mistakes'. It is my understanding that empty articles are automatic deletes, with no discussion being necessary. And one can delete one's own articles or categories (I will be eliminating some unneeded/redundant cats later on).

We need to be clear, however, on exactly what an empty article is. Such articles may actually contain text or an image, but are essentially content-free.

There are also many articles that contain just a url pointing to who knows where. My own view is that these should be deleted too, particularly if they have a very low visit count, and if they have not been edited since their initial date of creation. dKos has a rule against one-line diaries, and we might enforce that rule here.

Comments?--Allamakee Democrat 17:46, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

I've been deleting articles that are either completely empty or are nothing but a redirect to a real article. Most of the latter were the crap left behind by the recent vandal. As I have time, I'm working my way through the short-article list (which includes articles moved to Category D or W). I've fixed several of the Ws; mainly replacing div tags with blockquotes, but when there's no real content, off to the bitbucket...

I'd agree that a single URL and nothing else doesn't qualify as actual content. Dmsilev 20:00, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

Almost all of my deletions are my own mistakes.--Jbet777 21:48, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

Some contentless or very very short articles might better be considered stubs. You can put Template:Stub in an article to identify these and invite expansion, a la Wikipedia. A "Stub" category would be very useful here. --Centerfielder 04:49, 10 May 2006 (PDT)

Tentative Deletion Policy

  • Content-free articles may be deleted without discussion. This includes:
    • Articles that are literally empty of anything.
    • Articles with contentless text (e.g., someone has formatted things, but with no content).
    • Articles that are essentially a external-pointing URL. Someone mined the Congressional bio database, and inserted a whole bunch of such pointers.
      • Articles of a certain age that consist mostly of URLs, some of which have certainly expired.
    • Articles containing just an image (there are a few).
    • Spam, obscenity and vandalism are of course automatically deleted.

--Allamakee Democrat 17:28, 12 May 2006 (PDT)


  • To state it politely, there are a lot of stubs, many of which have not been edited since the day of their creation. Wikipedia does have a rapid deletion policy for short, virtually contentless articles. dKos also has a policy against one-line/one sentence diaries. I suggest we follow the same policy here at least for new articles.
  • For old articles, particularly those from the 2004 election cycle, and which have not been edited in over a year, I'm of the opinion they should also be vaporized without any discussion. Examples:

--Allamakee Democrat 17:28, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

List pages and Categories which may need deleting here.

Republican Moral Values

This article is a long series of unsourced accusations. It's just asking for multiple law suits, and, besides that, it's counterproductive to attack other people's moral values while demonstrating one's own lack of moral values. If something is true or even can be attributed to some definite source, then I have no problem with it. But just claiming that somebody did something immoral and/or illegal without offering a shred of proof is wrong. p0m 19:04, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

Nearly every entry has a link to a mainstream media source, all of which would be sued long before us. If you wanted to delete ones without attributions, feel free.

And I hardly see how a person who pointing to articles, many about people found guilty in a court of law, makes one equal to a child molestor. Could you run that bit by me again?

--PatriotismOverProfits 21:53, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

Delete if not cleaned up

Anybody can attack another person on the basis of rumor or distortions. That's how Richard Nixon got his start. If somebody was a communist and commiting crimes then Nixon should have taken them to court. The same goes for J.E. Hoover. I said claiming somebody did something immoral. Nixon insinuated that Jerry Vorhees was a communist by comparing his voting record with somebody who was a communist (or a "fellow traveller" -- I don't remember who the person was.) He didn't quite lie, but he showed himself to be a rat from the very beginning. His actions were wrong even if he protected himself from legal action by being slick. It didn't make him equal to a child molestor, just a rat. p0m 13:21, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

Also, you say "many about people found guilty in a court of law"... Nothing wrong with putting the citations up in these cases. However, if somebody has only been accused in the press, then that's all the article should reflect. And if somebody has only been indicted that does not mean that the person is guilty. p0m 13:26, 2 May 2006 (PDT)


Of all the articles that should be deleted (and there are several hundred of them spread over category D and category X) this one is on my keep list. All the dirt on all the sexually debauched Republicans should be neatly summarized and spread around the net.

Please sign your postingsp0m 13:38, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

Problem Contributor

Grazon is a specialist in creating deletion candidates. The article Amin al-Husayni is just another example. BartFraden. May 10, 2006.

For little one-line articles that are essentially flames, I agree. We are better off without them, and should delete them, as per my discussion up on top.--Allamakee Democrat 17:30, 12 May 2006 (PDT)
Who has the Admin status that grants the power to delete? p0m 07:00, 13 May 2006 (PDT)
me, among other recent others. Centerfielder is generous. And

I have been deleting. All admins can delete. I agree that Grazon is a problem. --Allamakee Democrat 22:01, 16 May 2006 (PDT)

Personal tools