Wikipedia:Does deletion help?
 |
This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the deletion policy. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
|
 |
This page in a nutshell: Don't leave our readers in the dark by deleting articles and sourced information. |
On Wikipedia, deletion is used to remove articles which do not fit within our remit. There are a number of types of articles which can be deleted on sight, ranging from attack pages to nonsense. See WP:CSD for more. For articles which don't meet those criteria, articles are deleted through editorial consensus after listing at WP:AFD. The question to be debated is whether or not the article improves Wikipedia. So the argument is whether or not articles add to a reader's knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way.
Where an article actually does add to a reader's knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way, it should, in keeping with the editing policy, be kept. Where it is misleading or biased, it should be removed.
Consider what is the best way to inform our readers. It may be best to confront and explain problems of a fringe or alternative theory over leaving our readers to search the web for said information. A well source article or section within an article can lead our readers to more reliable information then a search engine can.
Merger of information into a parent articles may also cause problems. A few questions to ask are; will said info be accessible with out having to read a huge amount of unrelated info beforehand, will a merger of information lead to less information because of the overview nature of parent articles, will the information on said topic in a parent article lead to less updates because of our undue weight policies?
A large number of policies and guidance sometimes conflict with the above approach. For example, guidance on notability states that we need a large number of secondary sources to summarise. This can at times conflict with our purpose, which is to inform. The usual safety valve in this instance is WP:IAR: namely, that we should aim to improve the encyclopedia in whatever we do, as we are here to help our readers find information not suppress it.
External link[edit]
- Deletionism - meta.wikimedia.org
- Inclusionism - meta.wikimedia.org
- Mergism - meta.wikimedia.org
- Separatism - meta.wikimedia.org
