Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Merging during live AfD

WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion advises against merging content from an article at AfD, suggesting that editor wait until the AfD is closed. Since Guide to deletion has low activity, I'm starting a discussion here to see if current consensus affirms this guidance. Moving articles at AfD comes up occasionally (WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Policy on moving a page when it's in AfD? and the next section Moving articles during a live discussion), but I'm not sure if any considerations are shared. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's OK if no one objects. If there are objections, then wait for the AfD to finish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd really prefer we didn't, because it can preempt the deletion decision. If I merge content from an article which is likely to be deleted into an article which is likely to not be deleted, it can force the deleting admin to either delete the merged revisions (something not likely to happen because it is both a pain in the ass and akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face) or leave the merged article as a redirect. In the cases where merger is suggested at the deletion discussion (either by the nom or by a few editors) and would obviate the reasons for deletion, I have less of a problem, but I still would prefer the AfD come to a close first. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This leads me to believe that in such cases, nomination for deletion should never have occurred, and is indeed a waste of resources. If content is suitable for merging, I think keeping valuable content superseeds the deletion process, and would make things run smoother. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is beyond the scope. I don't want to get into it. In practice almost every fiction afd has a likely merge target (the parent work) and options other than deletion are often entertained. Whether that is right or wrong isn't really the issue. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then leaving that aside, it probably isn't a good idea most of the time, and it probably won't stop me some of the time. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's often not a good idea, unless there's already a nearly universal consensus to do so--a SNOW merge non-admin close, if you will. The complications raised by Protonk are a very good reason why BOLDly doing so otherwise might be an inappropriate use of IAR. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did one of those merges and it's very circumstantial. Usually those articles are spin-out ones tagged for clean-up and/or merge. The Afd nomination just put this or those articles on the top of a project clean-up/merge list. The Afd nominator could have contacted the concerned project instead of starting an Afd which i agree would save everyone a lot of time. --KrebMarkt 06:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic specific wikiprojects should be given the heads up before a nomination, but there are other avenues that seem to be working. I've noticed an increase in new articles added over at WP:Proposed mergers, and I think this theme is starting to catch on. Its a good noticeboard for complicated merges. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reaching consensus on a merge is the lesser half of the job, making the merge effective is the bigger half. Here the merge back-log of the anime/manga project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Cleanup_task_force#Articles_needing_to_be_merged Scary and i'm not even sure it's up to date. So when an Afd bring back articles on the top of the to do list, you rather want it to be fixed asap before other things happen delaying even more the clean-up. More use of WP:Proposed mergers is a really good thing, i just hope the merges are done afterward. --KrebMarkt 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, we should be able to merge during AfDs per WP:BOLD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:IAR. An Afd should NOT prevent us from improving Wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e. content, not to be mired in technicalities. If we find a solution in the course of a discussion for content's use that does not require an admin to have to use the delete function, we go with that rather than play games waiting for the verdict in some snap shot in time five to seven day discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  I do agree there in principle; but we do have to be mindful that not everybody necessarily agrees if a consensus forms quickly. In general, I think some latitude should be given to allow speedy closes if most participants in a debate come up with a compromise before the end of the scheduled time, but effort should be taken to respect all views already posted. I'm thinking of a theoretical AfD where five people !vote to delete, then someone else comes along with a reasonable merge proposal, and two of the five "deleters" agree with it. The other three don't immediately respond, a compromise is declared, and the article's merged. There's great potential for some or all of the other delete proponents to come back the next day to discover that a decision they disagree with has been unexpectedly made without their input. Early merges should be encouraged, but only where consensus is sufficiently clear that an early closure would normally be warranted. ~ mazca ^talk 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a dodge to me - merge the cruft and claim that the AFD no longer needs to be run and then unmerge it a little while later and hope that nobody notices. The AFD should be concluded first. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• • The nonsense non-word "cruft" is never a valid reason for deleting or merging anything on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I sense a conversation degeration approaching. Anyways, I would think the situation Cameron suggests suspects bad faith, and very rarely have I seen a well completed merge get reverted. I would suggest that those cases are extremely rare, or non-existent. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • They are relatively rare, but by no means non-existent. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I'll take your work for it, unless you feel like providing an example. Even still, I don't think a few renegades trying to outrun concensus should trump good sense. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Usually we merge the relevant information and leave the Afd nominated article untouched. Whatever the Afd ends quickly or until the 7 days doesn't enter into consideration. There may be some persons gaming the system by doing a merge then undoing it to dodge an Afd. However it could happen with merge during live AfD as much with merge after Afd precess. I can't see why an Afd closing after a full 7 days with a merge result would offer any guaranty that the article won't be merged just for appearance purpose than un-merged back when things die down. --KrebMarkt 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
          • You can email me if you would like some more problematic examples. I don't work 'in the trenches' anymore, so requests for obvious examples of reverted redirects and undone mergers should be directed to someone who does. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I can't remember which article, but I redirected it during an AfD, and everyone thought it was a fine solution at the time. This kinda seems like a solution in search of a problem. If someone is trying to hide behind the GFDL or CC3.0 or whatever while behaving badly, they'll quickly be disabused of it, I imagine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses.

• Some history: There was an outright prohibition of merging in the original February 2005 version. Aside from the removal of "considered to be vandalism", the wording stayed mostly unchanged until Rossami's full rewrite in September 2005 (rewrite discussion), which relaxed the prohibition to the "extreme caution" warning. The wording "unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy" was added within a day of that rewrite. There have been a short-lived removal based on visible deleted revisions (revert), a suggested workaround by fully rewriting the content, and a minor licensing update, but the core wording has remained stable since September 2005.^{messy diff} The guidance is not new, but consensus could have shifted away.
• As mentioned above, there are cases where a merger is a foregone/SNOW conclusion. To avoid confusion and to lessen the appearance of unilateral action, the editor should SNOW close the AfD, then perform the merger. The "strong case for merge" wording invokes arguments based on WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD; their strength should be evaluated by consensus at the AfD.
• This discussion was mentioned in this week's Signpost. WP:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination) was covered in an adjacent section. Despite a split consensus, the nominator performed a merger and requested a speedy close; objections necessitated another AfD.

Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• A point that I forgot to highlight: as Protonk mentioned, a merger can be performed by any editor, but can only be reversed – with difficulty – by an admin. Flatscan (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merging during an AfD is a highly disruptive tactic used with the aim of precluding a delete outcome. It is a bad faith, battleground approach. Sure, there will be some cases where it's uncontroversial (and what harm is there in awaiting a close?). In the cases we've all seen, it's not been uncontroversial. Those regularly employing the technique in controversial circumstances should be blocked and/or banned for their disruption. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  a current example:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson

  Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack, is an AFD ever disruptive? If an editor puts an article up for deletion which could easily have been merged in the first place, is this disruptive? Ikip (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Jack may give a different answer, but let me interject. Both of your questions are topical and important, but the two are not intrinsically related to each other. I can answer the first in the affirmative. Even a good faith AfD can be disruptive (interestingly enough, for some of the same reasons that an out of process merger can be disruptive). And sometimes sending something to AfD where AfD is clearly the wrong venue can be disruptive, but that does not mean that all or most things which may be merged (or moved, or fixed, or whatever) should be handled without AfD. As I've said before, most fiction articles necessarily have a parent article, making merger an obvious choice. But it does not behoove us to foreclose an entire avenue of possibilities for an entire class of articles simply because another option technically exists. Now on that point we are probably in opposition. But there is room for discussion there. Whether or not that discussion is relevant to current practice (i.e. if you and I come to some interesting compromise about this, the rest of the AfD going world will probably neither notice nor care) is up in the air. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KrebMarkt, an AFD should not hold material hostage. If this material should not be in the article which the material is merged to, it will be removed, if the merged material is valid, and referenced, it will stay. Often merging is simply cleaning up articles which editors who put an article up for deletion didn't do in the first place.

I would like a headcount of everyone's positions thus far, because Flatscan warned an editor a second time, stating that "The support for your view was fairly limited". I respectfully disagree, it appears to me that most people here support some merging of articles.

• Opposes: flatscan, Protonk, Cameron Scott, Jack Merridew
• Limited: Peregrine Fisher, Jclemens
• Supports: NickPenguin, KrebMarkt, A Nobody, Mazca, Ikip

Please keep in mind, whenever their is a headcount some editors always say, I didn't mean that, so my apologies beforehand. Ikip (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of "The support for your view was fairly limited", referring to A Nobody's view: in contrast to most other editors' opinions, A Nobody made no mention of limitations or merely implementing an obvious consensus. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD shouldn't hold content hostage. Is a merger during an AfD allowed to hold the AfD outcome hostage? Because unless I go through a somewhat laborious deletion and restoration of the target article, a merger during an AfD precludes the possibility of a close other than keep, merge or redirect. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• That can't be that simplistic. Merge during Afd should remain an exception. In anime & manga project those article are part of our to clean up and to do list, Afd is just preempting the call. Personally, i won't do merge during Afd if i'm not certain that i can call upon my project for fire support. The bottom line what has precedence project clean up drive or admin by the book handling. I think good sense compromise have to be found case by case. I don't want to think about the wikidrama in case of non compromise. --KrebMarkt 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not attempting to reduce it to that. I just want to get across my core complaint about mergers during AfD, a complaint which (hopefully) is neutral vis a vis the notability wars. Once admins get revision delete people can merge to their heart's content during AfD, because it won't allow the person conducting the merger veto power over the outcome. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems simple to me, if the material is not worthy of wikipedia when it is merged, it will be reverted out anyway.

The only case I see were:

"it can force the deleting admin to either delete the merged revisions"

...should ever be an issue is if the material merged is copyright or BIO violations, which rarely is in AfD anyway because it is speedied well before.

The page is deleted, the name is deleted, and the article history is deleted, there is a finality. What about userfication? Even though the outcome of the AFD has been decided, editors can userfy the material of nearly any deleted article. In both cases, partial merging and userfication, the AfD outcome is the same.Ikip (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I understand you. My concern is that the GFDL requires attribution history for content. this is satisfied during a merger by pointing to the article and revision where the content was merged from in the edit history of the target page. But if the article is deleted, the attribution chain is broken and either the merged content has to be removed from the history (where currently the only method is to delete the entire page and then selectively restore all edits but the merged edits) or the history of the deleted page added to a talk sub-page of the target. Both are somewhat laborious and non-standard and not all admins know how (or even that you must) to do them. So if I merge content during an AfD I can make undoing that merge difficult and consequently I can make deletion difficult, usually forcing the article to be kept, redirected or merged. That's what I mean by holding AfDs hostage. I'm not particularly interested in grand battles over the finality of AfD. I supported and am active at WP:REFUND and I support userifying content wherever reasonable. Likewise I don't have a problem with undeletions in order to merge. I have a serious problem with the chain of logic that it is ok to force mergers at AfD while simultaneously complaining that mergers at AfD are out of process. Protonk (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is actually quite common to have editors delete redirects of old articles, deleting the history, what happens to the attribution chain then? I think I know the answer:

Help:Merging_and_moving_pages#Performing_the_merger. Discussed by Flatscan here: Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries. The chain is not broken if an editor adds the proper information in the edit summary box when the editor merges. Ikip (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding redirects resulting from mergers, {{R from merge}} is meant to provide a clue that the redirect has meaningful history and should not be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, to be crude, those admins are fucking up. In some cases they are being set up for failure. It is not required but it is good practice to note in the article history that you are merging content from an article, if only to stop especially diligent admins from accidentally deleting page history that is important. As for your second question, WP:SMERGE notes that is required but it is only sufficient if the article isn't deleted, because then the individual contributions are accessible from the history tab. If the article is deleted, then we cannot determine who wrote what when and we no longer have appropriate GFDL attribution. In reality, this probably happens a lot (mostly not due to delete happy admins but due to cut and paste moves being performed improperly), but we have to make sure that we try to minimize it or fix it wherever possible. Protonk (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay then we can agree that there is no GFDL issue if an editor, during a AfD, added the proper information in the edit summary box when the editor merges. 07:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. No, we can't. There is no GFDL issue, so long as the article is not deleted. However, if the article is deleted and the target article not modified as I described above, a GFDL issue develops. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"My concern is that the GFDL requires attribution history for content." A correctly labeled merger edit summary provides that police chain. Can you state the GFDL that you are quoting? Ikip (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Two components are required to provide attribution:

1. The original article's history, which cannot be deleted as long as the merged content is visible, even in old revisions (best explained by WP:Merge and delete)
2. A pointer from the merged content to the original article, in edit summary and/or {{Copied}} (directions at Help:Merging#Performing the merger)

If anyone finds specific points to be unclear, please let me know, and I'll start efforts to improve the relevant documentation. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this conversation could easily be moved to Help:Merging. But it is important to clarify the rules:

1. GFDL/CC-BY-SA, talking about external? (more)
2. Largely ignored (more)
3. Merge information, parent deleted (more)
5. History of these merges. (more)
6. The essay is, and I quote, "not a policy or guideline itself" (template, top of page), so it should not be seen as a rule which editors can be blocked for. [And that is exactly what many editors like User:Jack Merridew below, are espousing]

   On the talk page, when one editor asks if this should be policy, the creator of this essay says:

1. "No, I don't think so (speaking as the original author). Several things in it are deliberately tentative, because it's an interpretation of the GFDL, not a description of the community will (which is what a policy is)."

1. The essay has been edited by 17 people, over three quarters of those editors have 2 or less edits.[1]

Ikip (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no clarification necessary. Two things are necessary for attribution, and we are required to maintain attribution. You can even ask A Nobody if you like, he loves citing "Merge and Delete" in AfDs. He knows exactly why we can't delete articles after merging their contents elsewhere. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My bias here is that I'm seeing merging used as a tactic during AfDs to skew the outcome, and I'm seeing it defended with GFDL citing reasons, and I think that's wrong. I feel that way because if there ever actually IS an attribution question, where someone is asserting GFDL rights about something, even if it was a deleted thing, admins can go look and see in the deleted history and produce the needed attribution. (Heck, this is true even if something is oversighted, it still can be looked into, although in that case you need an oversighter to see what happened) So merging as a tactic to force at least a redirect to be left behind ought to be deprecated, at the very least. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the end result is that the articles from which the content is merged to are improved and these are articles whose existence no one would contest, I cannot imagine any reason why any editor would actually be opposed to such improvements. Per WP:PRESERVE, if we have material that we can use to improve articles, no reason exists why volunteers should not go ahead and use that material to improve the other articles per WP:BOLD as well. Only if the article under discussion is a copy vio or libelous, i.e. really does need to be deleted for legal reasons, is there a pressing need to outright redlink rather than redirect with edit history intact. AfDs should not be used to prevent editors from actually improving other articles not under discussion that can benefit from the content in the article under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And what if the end result is that it's not actually an improvement? It happens. More importantly, you haven't actually addressed what I said, you're trying to justify an unacceptably forcing tactic with platitudes. Consider what others are saying, it's not a good thing to do, it is trying to impose your will on everyone else. Until there is a clear consensus in favor of it, you need to stop doing it. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in the instances that I do. Clearly the articles at least when I merge are indeed being improved as a result. That is exactly what we actually should be doing here, i.e. improving content and adding to our compendium of knowledge. Not getting bogged down in bureacracy. Not becoming a compedium of deletion discussions. Why would I listen to those who are not helping to improve the articles at all or who in some cases have even admitted that they would never argue to keep in an Afd or are litterally too lazy to look for sources (yes, one of the delete reguglars outright said as much)? Per WP:IAR, if articles can be improved, no editor should be hindered from doing so just because of some snapshot in time discussion with maybe a half dozen or so participants. No good faith editor could possibly prefer that improveable articles not be improved when they can just as no reasonable editor would likely oppose redirects with edit history intact when that edit history does not need to be deleted for legal reasons per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a clear consensus in favor of it, you need to stop doing it. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a clear consensus against it, which there is not, based on the above discussion, I see no reason why I nor anyone else should not do what they can to actually improve articles. I whole heartedly agree that I will not do so in instances where what is being discussed is libelous or a copy vio, i.e. I will not try to protect legally damaging content, but seriously now, in the handful of cases when I have added sourced content, the only accounts saying to delete in the discussions are ones who either admittedly are not interested in looking for sources, make false statements about the reality of the article, or reveal a lack of expertise about the subject by declaring say even published magazines not counting as reliable sources. In any event, the only thing close to a proscription against merely cautions to be careful. It does NOT outright assert editors cannot be WP:BOLD and follow WP:PRESERVE. We do not have to abide by rules that do not exist or that do not have any consensus behind them. And again, I cannot imagine any reason why anyone would want in good faith to prevent articles from being improved when they can be. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion, taken in isolation, does not have a clear consensus to allow the practice. Therefore, it is a 'no consensus' outcome, which defaults to no change, to "do as was done before" (which is to not do this). But far more importantly, it is a small and local discussion, and is insufficient to overturn a longstanding practice. Review the history of this page, please, and you will find it's pretty clearly not a practice that is approved. When you do this you impose more work on the closing admin if you happen to be incorrect about the discussion outcome (and who among us is 100% infallible?). So don't do it, please. If you really want this area changed, consider an RfC on the topic, properly mentioned at WP:CENT so it has wide participation. Till then, don't be disruptive, it would be greatly appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if accounts do not disruptively use AfDs as a means of preventing us from improving actual content. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel some responsibility for all these bytes spilled on the topic, since I came up with the current wording a few months back, so I wanted to explain a bit of my rationale: I think the current formulation strikes a good balance by discouraging moves during AfD as a matter of etiquette, rather than creating an outright prohibition (of which I am wary, on principle). However, I do agree with the comments above that find a majority (but certainly not all) of moves-during-AfD are disruptive and counterproductive. To those who say "why have etiquette stand in the way of improving WP as quickly as possible," my response is: there is no deadline, and why can't we wait for the few days for the AfD to run its course, build consensus around the move, and then move the article? Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Does your opinion extend to mergers (did you mean mergers)? My mention of moves in the original post may have been confusing. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We indeed have no deadline and as such there is frequently no urgent need to force editors into a mere week long discussion determining the fate of article. We should be more considerate to our contributors. Once we determine the article has ANY potential value, we need to be discorteous to them by trying to get rid of it, especially if it is cases where any of us just are not interested in helping improve it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While I nearly always disagree with you, your comments at least usually have some degree of internal consistency. That one doesn't. The lack of a deadline means we can't wait? We need to be discourteous? I think you need to reread and rewrite.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We should not be discourteous to those who actually work on articles by making artificial deadlines to get rid of their work or to prevent volunteers from improving their contributions when they have the time to do it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging whilst an article is afd does force a "merge" outcome and imposes one person's will (the person who merges content) on the discussion. If a merge is warranted, suggest the content you would like to merge and vote for that. If you are reasonable and clear about the particular content you want to save, other people will be encouraged to ask for it to be merged. There is plenty of time for an article to be merged after the discussion has reached consensus. Another point, when taking content from another article, it can be quite easy to reword it into your own original words. This is especially true when you are adding information you have found to the content you wish to merge. Unless the wording is particularly unique and you believe quality would be lessoned by altering it substantially, there is no reason not to re-write it in your own words. This method preserves content but does not force a "keep" result. In an afd, everyone should have an equal opportunity to cast their vote, choosing from all the options that are available and not have their vote forced by another party who ends up controlling a discussion. Seraphim♥ 09:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The rewriting workaround is a viable alternative to waiting, mentioned in the guide. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's an abuse of process and should be stopped. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, using AfDs as an excuse to prevent improvement of actual content is an absue of AfD process. Building articles means far more here than having to satisfy the whims of a handful of accounts in a snapshot in time week long discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@Seraphim & Cameron Scott:

I will repeat myself, merge during Afd must stay very circumstantial. The most likely case is if there is a consensus within a project to have some articles in its clean-up/merge list when a such article is sent to Afd, that project will likely and de-facto hijack its outcome. The sole example, i remember is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Cailum class battleship. It was the impulse a renewed clean-up drive targeting others articles in the same series & universe. --KrebMarkt 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that example. At the time that the article was merged, support was trending towards merge. The AfD was later closed with a reasonable consensus, but an early close would not have been appropriate, and TheFarix's merge jumped the gun a little. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that was rather challenging for editors having others opinions because changing that Afd outcome will have required either changing the project consensus or proving that this article is an exception to this consensus. A such feat is clearly difficult to achieve especially for editors who don't know the in & out of the said project.

For TheFarix's merge, it should be viewed in both perspectives. From the Afd perspective his action are somewhat fast but from the project perspective it was a long overdue clean-up. --KrebMarkt 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the merger did not substantially affect the outcome, this discussion is mostly academic. I may have dropped TheFarix a note if that AfD were more recent. I'll grant that another outcome was unlikely, but not inevitable. Echoing UnitedStatesian above, I don't see an issue with waiting a few days. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• If an article is at AFD then this should not prevent work upon other articles which are not at AFD. AFD are purely to decide whether an article is to be deleted and I gather that there was no consensus to make them a general forum for article debate, i.e. Articles for Discussion rather than Articles for Deletion. Consideration of merger is therefore outside the scope of AFD. What is more urgently needed in the relevant section is some guidance about removing material from the article under discussion, so that editors have difficulty in reading the full article which is under debate. Removing disputed material and then claiming that the article should be deleted because it is now an inconsequential stub seems disruptive - see Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots for a fresh example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Consideration of merger" is by no means "outside the scope or AfD". There are many outcomes from a deletion discussion, and often the consensus is to merge. However, leaving aside the occasional sensible snow outcome, pre-emptive merge or redirect, I feel the discussion should run its course; there is no deadline, after all.  pablo_hablo. 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• General comment - It comes down to commons sense. Kinda like a snowball merge. If it should obviously be merged, merge it, and the AfD problem is mostly solved. I guess our 7 day rule is a hard rule now, but I think the AfD should just be closed at that point. I believe Protonk that it's a pain in the butt to undue a merge, so they should only be performed in obvious cases. Another thing Protonk mentioned is the fiction wars. I get the feeling this is an extension of that, so there isn't much use in trying to change hardened positions. Everyone should just use common sense, and if there are problems take it to ANI or wherever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've been linked here after bringing it up with A Nobody without knowing about this discussion. I'm personally happy to see content merged, preserved and rules ignored, but is it that hard to wait until the end of the AfD? There isn't an editorial deadline and keeping the discussion free from unnecessary distractors is a good idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Merging during live AfD

When is it appropriate to merge content from an article at AfD? Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Since a clear consensus was not reached, I am revisiting this discussion, with possibly an RfC for more input. If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please consider reviewing the substantial discussion above. Original prompt: WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion advises against merging content from an article at AfD, suggesting that editor wait until the AfD is closed.

Merging content from an article at AfD is appropriate:

1. if a single editor believes that there is viable content that should be copied to related articles, improving Wikipedia per WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR
2. if the AfD has substantial support for merge
3. if the AfD has overwhelming support for merge that would be a valid close under WP:SNOW or WP:Non-admin closure
4. almost never, with very limited exceptions
5. never

Since there was some confusion over where editors stood in the last discussion, I wrote a selection of opinions, numbered for reference. Feel free to work from or ignore them. Flatscan (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the previous participants, minus those who have already commented below. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I placed a rfctag policy on this section. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• 2 or 3. Depends. It's a case by case kinda thing. Protonk (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• I tend towards 4. Really, it is almost never so urgent that a merger cannot wait until the AFD is finished, but it clouds the issue substantially if done during a live discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Number one. Why create even more bureaucracy and rules? Ikip (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4, with extremely strong cases of 2 or 3 being those limited exceptions.—Kww(talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4, reasons being:

1. no - too open to disruption
2. kinda, but why not let the AfD play out? Articles often change radically during an AfD.
3. see above - what's the rush?
4. the best approach. Let the AfD run its course.
5. never say "never"

 pablo_hablo. 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Notified all editors who had commented in the previous discussion, minus those who already commented immediately above, 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• 5 is my first thought (Per Stifle, what's the rush? ) but call it 4.99 as Pablo makes a convincing argument against absolutism. Ikip: it's not about bureaucracy, it's about not making messes that need cleaning. Have some consideration for your fellow editors. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hello people from AN's RfC. I think a redirect during a live AfD, when it's an obvious thing to do, should be allowable. I used to do it back in the day before we became so obsessed with seven day AfDs, and it worked pretty good. We'd just cut the AfD short, and call it a day. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• 3, but why not go ahead and snow-close it? 2 if there is support for a particular merge by the AFD participants over at least a 24-hour period. WP:PRESERVE should be used for articles that are likely to be deleted soon: If an AFD is failing it's okay to copy material OUT to other articles under WP:PRESERVE. Likewise, if A and B are up for AFD, either together or independently, and B is going down to defeat then by all means merge useful material into A. After all, if A was not in AFD you would be merging the useful material, right? By the way, I do not think licensing issues require material copied from deleted articles to be deleted, despite what WP:C#You may edit the article during the discussion says. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • but why not go ahead and snow-close it? There is no onus on me to do a Non-Admin early SNOW Close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4++. Anything less is disruptive. In the case of a '3' situation, do the close and give it 24h to see if it sticks. As a regular tactic at AfD, merge-to-thwart-delete should be viewed as blockable disruption. Even in the case of a '4' the emphasis should be on *limited*. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• 3, but without the need for "overwhelming". "Convincing" is enough. 1 is also good. Note, as per WP:MAD, if material is copied, during or before the AfD, then deletion should not be taken lightly due to our licence, in favour of a redirect. The exception would be when the merge target is similarly dubious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • • If in doubt, just wait. #2 and #3 both imply that the article is not going to be deleted.
  • And you have posted exactly why 1 is badness. In the case of a "delete" outcome, the merge then has to be undone, making more work for everyone else, just so one editor can (selfishly) indulge their belief that the article shouldn't be deleted outright, or impose their will in contravention of consensus. I'm with Jack, 1, if repeated, should be considered disruptive enough to warrant blocking. We don't need that sort of disruption. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree. To merge content is to assume that the result will be a version of Keep. If you are right, all is good. If you are repeatedly wrong, you are disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• 5. Any exceptions would be exploited. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Exploited by whom? To do what? Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Potential exceptions would be used to falsely justify more merges than those exceptions are actually intended to allow. I can already see the more passionate inclusionists claiming that there is "overwhelming support" (supposing standard #3 above was adopted) for a merge when, say, only 5 people have !voted for 'merge' while the other 20 who have participated in the AFD are supporting deletion. The purpose of doing this would be the same as the existing reason to merge during a live AFD; to disrupt the process and force retention of material that would otherwise be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• 3++ if the AfD has overwhelming support for merge & has a prior project consensus for merge that would be a valid close under WP:SNOW or WP:Non-admin closure. Other cases waits 7 days. Afd agenda colliding project clean-up drive & agenda can justify merge during Afd. Some projects have hundreds articles tagged for clean-up/merge they better handle those articles quickly before they end up again at the bottom of their to do list. --KrebMarkt 06:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4, because merging prematurely precludes a keep. If the article is deleted, and even one editor makes a good case to merge some of the content somewhere, WP:REFUND or any reasonable admin should undelete the article for purposes of merging. Just because something is "deleted" doesn't mean it's gone. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• The fourth option should be the obvious choice; any exceptions will be an IAR sort of thing but should not be encouraged. We ought not be creating messes for others to clean up. Shereth 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4, let the AFD run, someone could show up near the end with information that completely saves the article. It is only 7 days, nothing requires that quick of a merge. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4, as many have said above: moves should only happen after closure. If that is a WP:SNOW closure (although I can't imagine a WP:SNOW move, can you?) or non-admin closure, fine, but a closure is needed nonetheless. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4 (almost never); exceptions being 3 (overwhelming/unambiguous merge support per SNOW or NAC), but prefer closing, then merging in those cases. Editors who would like to copy content may 1) wait or 2) rewrite. Flatscan (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4.65 - very close to never, but bureaucratic nit-picking should never interfere with building the encyclopedia. If the support is clear enough for 3 to obtain, go ahead and close the debate rather than merge the subject during discussion. 1 and potentially 2 are disruptive, especially given WP:DEADLINE. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• I would generally be in favor of not merging during a live AfD, though I would be open to being convinced that in some particular cases there might be exceptional circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• What if an article has good text that can be used elsewhere, but it's going to be deleted. This happens all the time. We need some way of allowing this material to be used, besides "you must convince people to vote merge or redirect or else you can't have it". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an argument against deletion I think, not an argument that one has to merge DURING an ongoing discussion. And as to what to do, find an obliging admin (an inclusionist such as myself, for example, but there are lots, see CAT:RESTORE) and ask for a REFUND... ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a procedural comment -- if the material was deleted via AfD, WP:REFUND can only userfy or email the text, not restore it. If the text is then reused in another article, GFDL issues can get tricky because of attribution problems.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• 1 Merger of useful material is best done while the AFD discussion is active following common-sense principles such as strike while the iron is hot and never put off to tomorrow what you can do today. And of course, there is a pressing deadline in that there may be a significant risk that the article is deleted and its useful material is then not available for merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Moot As a further point, it seems improper to suggest that we may forbid the copying of material as this would be contrary to the licence which governs our work. All sorts of people copy the contents of articles which may be deleted and some even make a point of copying them because they may be deleted. It seems impossible to prevent this and so I don't see any practical value to this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4. Merger can be used to abuse the AfD process by merging trivial content that could easily have been rewritten and then insisting that the page cannot be deleted for GFDL concerns. The merger should not go forward until the AfD has been closed as keep, no consensus, or perhaps merge. Also per 2/0. Anything less than 4, and perhaps 4 also, is too easily gamed by people. Verbal chat 12:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The "You can't delete this because it will break licensing" argument is bogus. When copying text from an article that will be deleted, all you need to do is copy the edit history of the source article to the talk page of the destination article. This is best done using a collapsible table or by a talk sub-page. By the way, when copying text from any article that might be deleted in the future, this is a good idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a valid method, described at WP:Merge and delete#Paste history to talk subpage, but it and its alternatives are rarely used since it is much easier to redirect the source article. Flatscan (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• 5, with a side order of 3. I don't have an objection to merging obvious candidates at AfD if there's strong consensus for it, but (a) there needs to be WP:SNOW consensus for a merge, and (b) the debate needs to be snow-closed as "merge" before a merge takes place. Guerrilla merging of live AfDs without enough consensus to actually close the AfD as such is disruptive - get the AfD closed, then undertake the resulting action. ~ mazca ^talk 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment about an example today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Heene got snow-closed as a merge with Colorado balloon incident. At about the same time Falcon Heene got redirected and the AFD closed, Colorado balloon incident went to AFD due to WP:NOTNEWS. I have no clue if the merging started before or after the snow-close, and I have no idea if licensing was complied with. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the links. I'll take a look at the articles once the AfD closes and the dust settles. There's no attribution required if the copied content (into Colorado balloon incident) is deleted. Flatscan (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Placed rfctag policy Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• 4. Ideally, merging should not take place during an AfD but there may some circumstances where it would be appropriate. The betterment of the encyclopedia should always come first and that would suggest saving content if it can be saved but in some cases material that people choose to merge unilaterally is not always agreed upon as being an improvement. Better to let consensus determine whether or not content is worth merging in a debate and wait for the outcome. Seraphim♥ 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• 5 to avoid lawyering. And 4 is actually redundant as application of WP:IAR to 5. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A deleted article has useful text, so...?

What does one do? I'm not talking about text added after the AfD has started, which can be used as form or disruption. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't it a rule that you can ask an admin for it unless it is a BLP-vio or copy-vio? Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• This seems to be related to #Merging during live AfD – any objections to moving this to a subsection there?—moved Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Jclemens mentioned WP:Requests for undeletion (WP:REFUND), which was started/revived several months ago as a centralized alternative to asking the deleting admin or someone from Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Flatscan (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ineligibily criteria

We've recently had instances of GA class articles being nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Route 64). Is there consensus that articles that meet GA class and above are ineligible to be nominated at WP:AfD? Such article have already been through a review process and it should be demonstrable that they meet WP:N. Or are we going to end up with the situation of "Today's FA" (whatever it happens to be at the time) also being nominated at AfD? Can anyone forsee a situation where a GA or above class article should be deleted? Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See Deleting featured/good/important content above. The short answer is "no, no article is immune to AFD."—Kww(talk) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While no article is immune, the fast that it is a reviewed article argues strongly in favor of keep or in some cases, a WP:SNOW close. Remember though that just because it met GA standards 4 years ago doesn't mean it meets them now.

In the case of most GA+ articles, instead of !voting "keep per it's GA" !vote "keep per it meets current GA standards" or "keep because reasons for deletion are simply not true" and point back to the GA nomination as evidence that the reasons weren't true at the time of promotion and follow up with a statement saying why they still aren't true. Hopefully after a handful of such replies the nominator will withdraw or someone will snow-close it. In the few cases where the AfD nomination points out serious, hard-to-fix flaws, then even if the AfD fails the article should promptly be put under review for demotion. As with any GA+ article, easly fixable flaws should of course be promptly fixed.

Think of having recent or recently-reviewed FA or GA status as a poker hand having 4 aces: Unless there was cheating, it wins over AfD. Think of an older GA or FA one as a poker game where a player MUST replace their oldest card every turn. Just because it started off as a good hand doesn't mean it has one now.

As a matter of politeness and for the good of the wiki, anyone arguing that a GA+ article should be deleted should put the article under review first to see if it can be rehabilitated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we should make every reasonable attempt to fix the article first. Having said that, GA is simply one reviewer's opinion that an article meets the specific GA criteria. That review does not require one to look at notability or other common deletion reasons. AfD, drawning from a larger group of editors, shouldn't be restricted by that one reviewer's opinion. Still, the fact that there is presumably at least one good revision in the article's history should be a pretty good indication of the article's potential. This is even more true of FAs. Is anyone aware of a former FA that's been deleted? I haven't heard of one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Slut Night is an example of a GA (reviewed in oct 2008) that someone looked at again and noted that "hold on those sources are shit, what's all this about" and it was delisted in April and then deleted this month. The sources were *never* any good in that article. GA trumps nothing because it's a completely random process. If someone said to me at AFD "this is a GA", I say "yes and?" It carries no weight with me at all, because it relies on one editor doing the certification. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur was not only FA, it was on the front page.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is now in WikiProject space. Here's the article and talk page immediately after demotion. Follow the links to the FAC and two FARs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, GA reviews are done by a single person, so it would be ludicrous to make them immune to deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph article on Articles for Deletion

There was a Telegraph article on this page today: [2] JN466 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Will this coverage for Raptor Jesus save him? ;-P I've added a box of media coverage to the top of the talk page. Fences&Windows 20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination by unregistered user

In the section "How to list pages for deletion" I propose to add after "Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III" the words "An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I, note his reason on the the article talk page, and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking for a registered user to complete the nomination." The situation does in fact arise - see here. Any objections/better ideas? JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The afd template itself should also be updated to reflect this change. I'm not sure where the text ("Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Article name") is used in the template/documentation. It only appears if the step 2 page doesn't exist, I believe. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an open request to the developers by the WP:AFC project to ask to allow IP editors to create pages at specific non-talk locations (complete with subpage path). Perhaps WPP:Deletion should also ask for it?

I'd also suggest in the meantime to create a new template that IP editors can use to tag the section where the IP editor left the deletion rationale on the talk page... or create a Talk:articlename/AfD subpage and tag that with the proper templates. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a category? That would be a good clearinghouse - just create the AFD2 and pull the cat when it's done. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As a first step, I have made the change I proposed above. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

West Papua national football team

The above has been nominated for deletion but it's linking to a previous afd on the article. I don't know enough about the afd process - would someone kind enough and please check that it has been done appropriately? many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing rationales

I've started a thread on whether closing rationales should stay optional here. Please contribute! Fences&Windows 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Russ Canzler

Per a discussion above, would somebody complete the AfD? Deletion rationale can be found on the article talk page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - see, it works! JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Koren

Would somebody please complet the AfD? Here is the deletion rationale:

I have tagged this article for deletion on the grounds that it does not follow the NPOV guidelines for living persons biographies. This article is extremely, extremely pro-Gideon Koren. The article emphasizes his composition of Israeli music, emphasizes his accomplishments, and completely muddles up the Olivieri case where he wrote hate mail to colleagues (which he eventually admitted to). Every attempt on my part, and on several other's parts, to change this article have been met with threats of libel, and change-backs to their previous state. Because this article does not give readers anything close to a NPOV and is about a living person, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.123.207 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Not done - Your view that an article is not neutral doesn't mean it should be deleted. The article subject is clearly notable. Crafty (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• To expand on what Craftyminion said, NPOV issues are editing issues, not deletion issues. You've tried editing the article; the next step is to discuss on the article's talk page why you think changes should be made (include references!) and get a concensus. If you aren't able to come to an agreement, dispute resolution is the next step.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Buchanan

Another one for step two by a registered editor. Deletion rationale on the talk page, step 3 already taken care of. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it does work :) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD2 template appears to be broken

I used it here but got a bunch of gobbledegook. [3]. Did I do something wrong?? --AW (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have used {{afdx}}. {{afd2}} is supposed to be used on deletion discussion pages. Tim Song (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

List of relisted AFDs

You may like Wikipedia:Coordination/Relisted AfD debates, which is updated every 30 minutes. @harej 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Josh Reaume

Would a registered editor be kind enough to take care of step 2 for me. Deletion rationale on the talk page. Thanks, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 66.57.4.150 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: template for GA/FA deletion

I would like to recommend the template User:Davidwr/XfDFeatured (doc) or one like it for any XfD of featured, good, or other valued content. This is a continuation of the work done at User:Davidwr/Deleting GA+ articles, although I think it stands fine on its own independent of that user essay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. This is a good idea. Is there going to be any way to track how often it's used in appropriate circumstances? Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I envision a bot that sweeps Category:Open XfDs of valued content and its year-subcategories and adds "|closed=yes" on a regular basis, giving us a useful history while keeping the Open... categories usefully small. I also envision XfD closers manually adding "|closed=yes" when closing XfDs. I don't see this being used more than a few times a year but even with that low usage it will be very helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Metal Drift

Another to be completed by a registered editor. Deletion rationale can be found on the talk page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious (R. Kelly song)

Another one for completion of step 2 - deletion rationale on the article talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. If you're going to keep doing these, you might want to consider creating an account, so that you won't have to wait for someone else to complete it for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

José I. Lozano

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Car Transportation

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ensemble (software)

And another... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the following: Vanderbilt articles

The Biltmore Estate is a famous resort in North Carolina. While taking a look at this article, I noticed the following:

William Cecil is the present owner and is credited with preserving the estate which remains open to the public.

I wanted to check this fact, but the only citation is the website of the Biltmore itself. Poking around a little, it appears to me that some of the contributors to that article appear to have POV issues. In any case, I recommend that the following articles be deleted as non-notable:

George Henry Vanderbilt Cecil

William Amherst Vanderbilt Cecil

In addition, the following articles need some expert attention for references/POV issues:

Biltmore Estate

George Washington Vanderbilt II

Thanks for your time and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Never After

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Media Mention

I added this to the list of media mentions above. Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Foni Tu Argile

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ice Tropez

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User:MrKIA11 ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfredo Villanueva Collado

Unregistered user requesting assistance in deletion process. Entry does not seem to fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Further, a look at the page's history gives a strong suggestion that the page was actually started by the subject of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.21.130 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Wilson

smacks of self-promotion article of a non-notable person. GW has achieved a middle management role in IBM, has published (?likely self published) a book on chess (http://www.books-by-isbn.com/0-9514103/ - it's the only title published by the Phnumphic Press). I think User:Thegn, one of the main contributors, might well be Gavin Wilson, judging by the information he has provided. Also User:Ombudswoman. Also User:Amy Crescenzo/Sandbox. 86.134.92.67 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance templates added... I'll be keeping an eye on this one, and further research on it later... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A look at the history of Proximity mapping reveals User:Gavin Wilson too. So three of the four user accounts/socks have edited his vanity page.86.133.208.66 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to {{prod}} the article yourself if you wish... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. This diff [User:SuggestBot/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=78721733] shows User:Thegn is a sock/alternate account of User:Ombudswoman. 86.133.208.66 (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you check I've done it (the Afd) correctly please? 86.133.208.66 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ACDSee

I followed the instructions in Articles for deletion, but messed up and used a wrong Edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName" instead of "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACDSee". Is it a serious mistake? What should I do? --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it doesn't matter much, as long as the AfD tag on the page points to the right place and such, which it does. Besides, edit summaries are impossible to fix for regular users and admins, so unless something needs oversight it usually isn't worth worrying about. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, a new and corrected edit summary can be submitted using a Help:Dummy edit. Flatscan (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD deletion?

AfD is complete nonsense. Clearly these editors are inexperienced in creating articles if the articles are being nominated for deletion as a result. It's disruption to the Wikipedia community. Therefore, I propose that all editors should use the AfC to create articles. Robert9673 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Hopeless. Why did you even suggest this? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• STRONGEST Oppose - "AfD is complete nonsense" sounds like complete nonsense to me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Read my rationale. It explains why I want to propose this. Robert9673 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The question was rhetorical. It's obvious this will never happen. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion itself is a disruption to the community... Firstly, not every article brought to AfD is the result of editors who are inexperienced in creating articles. Secondly, not every article brought to AfD is deleted... also, if we relied completely on AfC, very few articles would be written, compared to the number that are written now. The rational that because articles are being deleted, we should get rid of the deletion process, and only write articles that people request, sounds like a bad faith nomination from either A:) someone who just had an article they created deleted, or B:) someone who does not fully understand the hows and whys of Wikipedia... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the response I made on User talk:Robert9673#Articles for creation. Robert9673 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You people really need to start to assume good faith before jumping to conclusions. At least give the idea a thought before opposing. Robert9673 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It takes time to review articles before they are officially created. We should encourage collaboration to the fullest extent. This will prevent vandalism in the future. Robert9673 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:NewPages is forever backlogged. What you are proposing is effectively permitting only creation of patrolled new articles. Look at the NP backlog, and you should realize what a bad idea this is. No. Tim Song (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is forever backlogged if they allowed any editor to create articles without review. If everyone reviewed articles before creation, it would prevent unnecessary vandalism. Of course it would also encourage collaboration among Wikipedia editors. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia to work together to produce high-quality articles? Robert9673 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal simply moved the backlog to AFC instead. It's still going to be a backlog. In addition, the application of some policies, such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:BLP, etc., are often not clear-cut. Asking a single reviewer to decide the issue invites arbitrary decisions; requiring extensive discussion would make AFC into AFD in all but name. Tim Song (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A backlog that will encourage more participation will result in strong collaboration. It takes forever for one article to be accepted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If there were more editors to review, we wouldn't have this problem. Collaboration is sorely needed for an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia to succeed. Robert9673 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a single reviewer decides the issue. However, he or she can asked others for more input if it's needed. This collaboration replaces all the unneeded discussion at Articles for deletion. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. Robert9673 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And completely does away with the free encyclopedia... with your idea, instead of anyone being free to create an article, each and every article (hundreds a day) would need to be created, reviewed and OK'd... and what happens when one of those articles is about a notable person, but the reviewer does not catch on, and that article is lost? this will not encourage anything other than the ideas already circulating that Wikipedia is run by a cabal... Instead of simply deleting those articles that are created which do not pass policy, you are proposing that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" be changed to "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as some random reviewer thinks your article is worthy"... With your idea, CSD and PROD would inevitably be done away with also, and I would much rather see an attack (or NN-BIO, or spam) article be created and deleted within the space of 5 minutes, than see that same attack aticle sit stagnant on AfC for a month or more because noone has had a chance to review it yet because AfC is backlogged with several hundred requests each day... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In the early days of Wikipedia, it used to be anyone could edit because the Wikipedia community was smaller. Now it has gotten rather large and enforcing is necessary for the goal to still be met. Do you not support the goals of Wikipedia:Articles for creation? By not allowing editors without accounts to create articles, it would now allow them to create articles at all. Robert9673 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I did give it thought before commenting... my first thought was the fact that article creation is already slowing down (to the point that some are suggesting an end to Wikipedia in the next 5 years), my second thought was that there is no reason for someone to have to go through the AfC process, when it's much easier (and less admin work involved) for them to create an article themselves... Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and add too... While that means that, yes, some of the articles created do not belong, a good number of new articles do belong... In addition, what about those editors that have been working on the project for several years, and have a good number of article creations under their belt already, what do you think they would do if they were no longer allowed to create articles? I think that this is a poorly thought out idea, by an editor inexperienced in the full process of creation and deletion... Furthermore, I think that even if we were to not allow user to create articles anymore, there would still be a need for AfD... the two are not so closely related that you can enforce one and do away with the other... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Nothing about this idea is going to stop vandalism in the future... only allow more if there is no deletion process... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I have to re-post this again since people are not getting the point. I am proposing that all new articles must go through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. WP:Articles for creation have been a success. If it weren’t, the community would have never accepted it. Despite the heavy burden of reviewing the articles, it has prevented the drama level of potentially deleted articles and prods. Many editors come to the AfC to create articles. It has never discouraged editors from contributing. Don't be afraid of failure. Work hard and the work will pay off.

Besides, it would give the editors of WP:NPP an easier time to check the created articles as all of them have been reviewed before creation. Robert9673 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A curious story! How did you learn the stunning piece of news that "the community" "accepted"  ? How did you know it "was" (past tense) a "success" and what happened afterwards? How many editors (not IPs) "come to the AfC to create articles" and what is their rationale for not creating them on their own? Perhaps you are right on one account only, that "It has never discouraged editors from contributing" - maybe because they are unaware of it ... yet. NVO (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the community accepted the Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If it didn't, it would have never existed. Some editors don't create accounts because they feel creating accounts would expose them to scrutiny. If they edit under an IP address, they can still contribute under less scrutiny. And of course, it will give them less pressure to create articles. Less pressure allows editors to feel confident in what they edit. Robert9673 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AFC, by definition, is a low-throughput operation run by a very limited force of volunteers. Anything wider will hit a stone wall of "not enough admins", "not enough reviewers" etc. May I recommend waiting until Flagged Revisions proceed from "test of a test of a test" to "test completed" stage, at which point the community (the real community) will get a feel of just how many revisions it can sight and approve. Although the failure of new page patrol should be a good indicator of FR future. NVO (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if there were a lot of AfC submissions, it would be impossible? Editors who choose to not have accounts have the same right as every other editor who has an account to create articles. You cannot just say no to AfC. The only solution to the "not enough reviewers" is simply to recruit more reviewers. Robert9673 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Disable article creation for one month - for everyone. Call it "improvement drive". NVO (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL... and disable AfD for one month, call it "Armageddon" "Rescue work"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That would violate Wikipedia's most cherished principle of allowing "anyone to edit". We should let editors who don't have accounts the opportunity to create articles. Robert9673 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The rationale here is to stimulate editing of existing texts, at the expense of a temporary ban on new bulbasaurs. "Anyone" will be able to edit just as they did before. If you want to start something new - you're welcome to do it in your user space, just don't release it to mainspace until such-and-such-date. NVO (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm as serious as Chris Walken demanding More cowbell although now less is better than more ... no, I'm really serious. and I did not mean shutting down XFD, not at all. Let all the housekeeping go on. There are heaps of things to do. Bring it to GA, check FU rationales, find the sources ... Time to take a deep breath and look around. NVO (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read your original statement as "disable AfC"... I thought it was a sarcastic comment... I like that idea, but I'm not sure how much it would change current article conditions... there are not a lot of editors that spend all their time here creating new articles. I don't think we would see current article improvement change any with the lack of creations, we would only see the lack of new articles... On the other hand, I would love to see an empty NP backlog, if even just for one day... I think a slightly more effective approach would be a "cleaning out up the attic" drive... I have been surprised a few times to click on special:random and find an article that hasn't been edited in 2 years, and see how lax citation policy was 2 years ago, some of these article have zero references, no infobox, very few wikilinks, etc., and haven't been touched since they were created... I'd love to see a list of the articles that were created more than 2 years ago, and have had a dozen or less edits since... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Flaw in notabitly critia

Hello all i have jsut foudna serious flaw in the notabilty searching of users for determine if a article is notable.

this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancelot and Guinevere (Merlin) is up for deletion due to the fact the nomaitor in fairness it was not there fault, said it was not notable because htere was no secondary sourcess, but at the top of the page there is findsource template but all it does it search american sources but this is british show so the sources are more easily fouind from a uk search engine so this is causing shows like this to be not notable when they are. I am not sure what can be done for this AFD and future one as this is a bit biased if users are not able to check notablilty fairly--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Google.com searches should return worldwide results... –xeno^talk 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but what sites do it list first??? it american sites so uk sites will be way down the list maybe page 10 so most people wont lok that far they will look in the fisrt few pages so ebcause it not in american site it wont be notable? i think this is a flaw that maybe need address if notmating a article it should search soruce with regionally sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Google doesn't order results by country. If the show is popular in UK to merit online followings, Google will bubble those sites up towards the top. But barring that, Google has options to limit results to specific country domains in the general web search, or from a specific country in the news search. That just requires a bit more work instead of a handy link, but that's no reason to invalidate how notability is judged. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)