Template:Did you know nominations/Deletion of articles on Wikipedia

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of articles on Wikipedia

(

)

... that "salting" as a metaphor that denotes preventing something from reoccurring is also used in the context of deletion of articles on Wikipedia? Source: "Occasionally, repeated re-creation can lead to an administrator salting a page, which means protecting the page and adding a special template that conveys the message that Wikipedia sincerely, truly, hand-on-heart does not want an article about this topic (the term comes from the phrase "salting the earth")". Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It. No Starch Press. P. 226. ISBN 978-1-59327-176-3.
- ALT1:... that deletion of articles on Wikipedia is often subject to a decision of an individual volunteer, without prior community input? Source: " Clearly inappropriate content (e.g. for copyright violations or attack pages) can be deleted immediately by an administrator in the “speedy deletion” process". Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, and Stefan Decker, "Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes", WikiSym '12: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (August 2012) Article No. 17, p. 2, DOI: 10.1145/2462932.

Created by BD2412 (talk) and Alalch Emis (talk). Nominated by BD2412 (talk) at 02:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

Now that I've read the article, I might as well give it a review. Onto it. Schwede 66 19:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
New article that's long enough. There are a few "Excerpt" sections but the original content is plenty enough. The second paragraph in the section "Articles for deletion" lacks referencing and that needs to be addressed as it's a specific DYK requirement. The article is neutral. It says Discussions typically last seven days, after which an administrator determines whether a consensus has been reached. and that is obviously not correct, as many (most?) AfDs get closed by non-admins. Earwig is happy. Hooks are both cited but that said, there could be more thrilling hooks in this topic. Outside of DYK requirements, you could go through the citations and unify the style of referring to authors, as there is a mix between "first last" and "last, first" (with the latter preferred going by the correct use of parameters in citation templates). QPQ is outstanding. Schwede 66 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Thank you. We have now made the following improvements:
– second paragraph in the section "Articles for deletion" has received full referencing (diff)
– wording was adjusted to allow for a possibility of non-admin closure (diff)
– went through citations to unify the style of referring to authors (~~diff~~ diff) /now truly done/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That leaves the QPQ as the remaining issue. Regarding author names, you need to define the parameters in the first instance; the order within a citation template gets sorted automatically (there is no need to have them in any particular order; it does it automatically). But as I say, that’s outside of the DYK requirements. Schwede 66 16:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure where I stand with QPQ, but I'd bet that Alalch Emis clears that hurdle. So far as I can tell, this will be their first DYK. BD2412 T 15:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now actually defined the citation template parameters; sorry I hadn't understood correctly what needed to be done the first time. This would be my first DYK. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, you show as the nominator and that triggers the QPQ requirement. Schwede 66 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where I stand with QPQ. I think I have some leeway there. BD2412 T 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As nominator, BD2412 is indeed the one who is responsible for QPQ. They have 11 prior DYK credits, but only 2 of them were for DYKs they nominated. Pinging EEng to see whether this means that, after the recent RfC, the credits are no longer relevant. If it's only nominations rather than credits that count, this is their third of five, and a QPQ is not necessary; otherwise, a QPQ is required. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless my early-onset dementia is flaring up, only nominations matter now, so it is as you say. E Eng 06:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, this is good to go. Schwede 66 17:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Modified ALT0 to T:DYK/P3