Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Geriatric AfDs

Just thought I'd make a note here about this. Last night, I discovered an AfD, from the July 31 page (and it had been relisted to it), that was still open. I closed it (it was a no-consensus), but it made me wonder if there could be any other "hangers-on" that were somehow missed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I try to double-check the daily AfD logs before removing them from WP:AFD/O, to make sure that nothing has gotten messed up. We try to avoid having things like these, but they do happen sometimes. I encourage other admins to do the same, looking over the AfD logs, since MathBot's count isn't always accurate.

If we want to solve the problem, we could have {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} use a 2nd parameter which dates the AfDs, which would make it easier to see when ones have been missed in a closing cycle. Or, alternatively, have a bot crawl Category:AfD debates every week or two to find AfDs that haven't been closed and aren't on a log at WP:AFD/O and relist the dates there. Perhaps we could just include it in MathBot's functions? Anyway, just throwing out ideas. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible this edit accidentally mangled part of the relisting template? I noticed the template doesn't have a line above and a line below as usual. BusterD (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they're still there. They're generated by the <hr style="width:55%;" /> HTML tag, and what happened was people commented between the template text and the lower line. As none of {{relist}} got removed, that wouldn't be it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the bot idea might be a good one, even double-checking sometimes misses things (trust me, I know ;P ) so having the bot providing a final line of defense, as it were, sounds reasonable to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fgetws

why did the page on the fgetws is selected for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashdatt (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

why did page on the fgetws is selected for deletion ? Yashdatt (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume because the nominator believes it's overly specific. His reasoning is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fgetws, where you should participate if you disagree with the deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Stasheff

This article already passed AfD, but I'm not satisfied with the results. I think the author is probably not notable, and none of the keep votes indicated any actual notability. The current biography has one source, this. The media section of Stasheff's site has little on it. There are small mentions spread about the web, for instance here, [1] slightly more here, and this. But I don't really see that it meets the general notability guideline or the notability policy on creative professionals. I didn't click every single link in the google news search.

At the least, I feel that the "keep" consensus on the deletion page was unsupported. I'd like to know what others think, and particularly if anyone feels that we need stricter standards on deletion proposals, such as "if notability has not been established by the end of the deletion discussion, the closing administrator should close as "delete""

Cross-posted to WP:N/N#Christopher Stasheff B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Heck, he's notable -- I used to have a whole bunch of his books. This is why we don't need hard and fast rules like the one proposed above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What does having written books have to do with notability? Notability for BLP is having enough sources to base an article on. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering his primary series has its own article, I really don't think there's an issue here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't see it. Where are the sources ? This is a BLP, not about his work. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If it's notable enough for its own article, that establishes his notability. Now if you want to go AfD that one, feel free.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any books, and I don't see any periodical articles/reviews. Do you? This is the same thing that happened at AfD. Lots of assertions, no sources. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right forum to complain about an AfD result. If you think it was wrongly closed then try taking it to Deletion review. I know exactly who he was when I saw the name as I also recall reading his books, along with the fact that his books sell well and his prolific production, this makes me suspect there is every likelihood that sources can be found in the near future. Fæ (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking it here, because as the responses here demonstrate, there is a much larger issue to discuss here: keeping articles, in fact BLPs on the assumption that sources exist somewhere or other, even though no one has found any. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

School Library Journal; Dec2004, Vol. 50 Issue 12, p174-174, 1/5p -- This volume presents new stories set in several series of proven and lasting popularity, by some of the best writers in the genre. They include Mercedes Lackey ("Valdemar"), Andre Norton ("Witchworld"), Robert Asprin and Jody Lynn Nye ("Myth Adventures"), Alan Dean Foster ("Spellsinger"), Christopher Stasheff ("Warlock"), and David Drake ("Isles"). There, you can no longer say "nobody found any".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Coverage must be significant. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no absolute requirement that all articles must demonstrably meet the GNG in order to be kept. From WP:N: A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. There is an absolute requirement from WP:V that there must be a reliable source on the topic of the article, but the significance of the coverage doesn't enter into that. Hut 8.5 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't meet the subject specific guideline [2] B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the source cited above he has created a "series of proven and lasting popularity" and he is "one of the best writers in the genre". That is IMO enough to show that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Hut 8.5 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And here. Well, again, if he's widely cited, there ought to be RS, right? But no one can find any. This whole discussion is me saying "show the sources," and others saying "there ought to be some." So okay, there ought to be, but show me. We ought to remember that as editors, we should exercise judgment, and not make an article on a person when we don't have enough sources to round out said article to at least some extent. It's an encyclopedia, and should have the potential to read like one. I was involved in another of these cases here, see the closing admin's remarks. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But it is enough to show he is "regarded as an important figure". Neither the notability guideline nor our policy on verifiability require that an article on this person be deleted. I suggest you take this discussion to WP:DRV, this really isn't the place for it. Hut 8.5 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The AFD for this article was closed on 6 August 2010. Therefore, another AFD would make more sense then DRV if he really feels that the article should be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor note, I've added 10 inline citations to the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol, yes, I guess maybe you have established importance. I think per Off2riorob's suggestion [3] there should be a WP:Loopholes essay. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Damian Slater deletion

Can a registered user complete this nomination? The reasons are covered in the multiple issues template below the nomination template. 101.173.101.94 (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Feel free to tweak the AfD rationale. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Slater. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is the audience of this project page?

This article is very confusing for those who are only interested in following one particular Article For Deletion discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The audience of this page is the community at large. So, no one in particular. If you're finding a specific part of the page confusing, point it out so that we can explain it to you or simplify the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mathbot vs 1.18

Is there a way to turn off Mathbot? It's borking up the numbers on /Old, presumably because of the 1.18 change. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pangs Theater Ensemble

This nomination, from 4 September, appears never to have appeared in the list for that date. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Monty845 listed it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone check Puppeteer (comics) and advise me what course of action to take?

I proposed for deletion the article Puppeteer (comics), but the article creator apparently nominated it for deletion removing the PROD tag, but without completing the AfD nomination. What do I do in this case? Do I restore the PROD tag or do I wait until the nominator completes the process? I suppose that I cannot do anything, as removing the AfD tag would be against the AfD procedure, but it seemed to me that the article creator simply wanted to contest the PROD. I'm not sure what to do here. Jfgslo (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that the same editor did the same with these other articles:

• Javelin (DC Comics)
• Shark (comics)‎
• Bolphunga

Jfgslo (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't restore the PROD tag, as we can safely assume that the removal means he contests it. As for the AfD tag, I'd suggest pinging the user on his talk page to see if he plans on completing the nominations, and removing the AfD tags if he does not or doesn't respond after a day or so. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I will do so. Thanks for the quick answer. Jfgslo (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@ lifebaka,

Actually this is the second time Rtkat3‎‎ has misused the AfD template. I've bulled them off and left them a note that there either need to follow through with the AfD or just de-PROD as contesting the proposed deletion without discussion of the article(s). - J Greb (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Chalk it up to a good faith mistake about how to contest a PROD. The correct move was to remove the AFD template. If you want to contest the contested PROD the next step is to complete a proper AFD nomination. Dzlife (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

KEEP anonymous (street meat)

Dear friends -- the image of the eye was restored (gun image was not) -- all images are available in "anonymous (street meat)" Google images, please, take a look. https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/132e812637a7fb8e

However, the file was truncated. Here's an example of different treatment -- the short "Saturday Evening Special" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Special_(film).

Meranwhile, I was interviewed by someone from the Huffington Post yesterday. The interview centered on my inspiration for "anonymous (street meat)" -- a 2-year ordeal with Bank of America.

Since this wiki space is being used as a plug to promote activities outside of Wikipedia, may I be allowed a plug to promote something inside Wikipedia: Talk:Bank_of_America#The_suicide_of_Kevin_Flanagan ? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With demonstrations and movements like "Occupy Wall Street" going on against Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks, thet script for "anonymous (street meat)" was ahead of time by having a plot that dealt with bank abuse with harrowing images. That's why the film has been well received at festivals abroad -- in Seoul Korea, for one, it was screened in over 14,000 monitors throughout the city. The HP article will link up to "anonymous (street meat)" and it's schedule for publication on November 1st, or earlier.

The articles on the Daily Bruin and the upcoming one on the Huffington Post are of relevancy socio-politically, so it's not without importance. The Bruin article itself is not quoted, but if anyone reads it, they can see that the short has social significance because its conception came out of issues that are being experienced in the country's political sphere right now -- events that occurred to me. But it appears that people delete without first reading or considering. The fact that I'm a Hispanic woman is alone of some note because I'm part of a tiny minority of filmmakers. That I'm a female professional screenwriter of Hispanic background who returned to UCLA for a Master's after working as a professional for years may also be interesting to some historians. I, personally, would be interested in reading a Wikipedia page about a notable Eskimo female filmmaker with a short in 24 film festivals and in some similar circumstances, for example. If there are any.

Here's one instance used as an example of editorial bias: The Saturday Night Special Wikipedia page, for one, doesn't have any references -- it is instead laudatory of that film to the point that when I happened upon it, I was surprised to see that and tried to flag it for an edit, not a deletion, an edit. Some people here have defended that film and reinstate it. Additionally, that page quotes from articles that are not linked. And even if they were linked, why quote stuff that reads like a publicity page.

"anonymous (street meat)" is important and should be maintained for the reference of other Latino and/or women filmmakers, as well as the general public at large.

Thank you for your support in this endeavor --

Kind regards, Mig (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong venue, please post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (Street Meat). Hut 8.5 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Underscoring

Shouldn't this article just be a Wiktionary entry? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A merge to film score would make the most sense. Dzlife (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mergers, BTW, don't require any special discussion or process. Any user may undertake one at any time, though controversial mergers should be discussed. Feel free to boldly merge the articles per WP:MERGE, though you may want to tag the articles for prospective merge and start a discussion to see if anyone objects. Give it a week, and if no one does, have at it! --Jayron32 17:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering why mergers/re-directs do not require discussion.

I started an article today, and I just found out that it was re-directed (without notifying me) to another article. It is the proper article to re-direct to, the problem is that the person who re-directed it did not merge the new contents into the existing article. Had I not noticed this re-direct the content I contributed to Wikipedia would have been lost. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Because unlike deletion, replacing content with a redirect is reversible by any user and leaves the previous version available in the article history. VQuakr (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes redirects are reversible, but only if the original contributor:

- Knows the article has been redirected

- Knows how to find the redirect page Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but that's not hard to do, and if they don't notice or think that it needs to be WP:SPLIT, then they're not going to care. If we implemented a formal process, the vast majority of merges would proceed as speedies without any change in the outcome, and we want to empower our WP:BOLD editors rather than weigh them down with bureaucratic procedures. For intermediate cases, tag the pages with {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} and start a discussion on the talk page. If you think a given merge is likely to be controversial or would benefit from wider community input, then you follow the process at WP:Proposed mergers. You've got options for managing this process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so sure that BOLD editors are encouraged to continue contributing when they find out that their contribution disappeared when the article they started was re-directed with no notice? (btw the usual thanks for providing all the links to useful stuff - I don't think I knew {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} existed) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why am I working for Google?

I've been wondering for some time about the way deletion discussions formally use Google as the default search engine for the "find sources" line at the top of discussions. Why do we not offer similar links to other search engines? Are we down to one? Who made that call? Aside from sheer facility, why do we favor one over all others? Has this previously been a discussed topic? BusterD (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't argue that Google is the best search engine available (that debate could go on forever without resolution) but it is by far the most prominent, the search engine has about a 2/3 market share. The term "google" is in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (as a verb). That ubiquity makes it the obvious default search engine, and frankly for a quickie search it's fine to just have one search engine. -- Atama頭 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that put Wikipedia in the position of picking winners? Is that what we should be doing as a community? Has this EVER been discussed? I'll concede that other search engines haven't built the same massive collection of raw searchable data (I use googlebooks constantly), but I'm starting to chafe at the obvious COI between the most powerful internet company in the world and the most powerful user-built encyclopedia. Hence the title of this section. I myself could certainly use another method, and I'm sure other editors are sensitive to this issue, but IMHO to have formalized use of one company in procedures seems a poor course, long-term. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to AFD discussions, the ability to quick switch search venues from the web, to news, to journals, to books, and so on just by clicking on one button is beyond invaluable. This doesn't prevent any other search site from being used, but google's toolset is so complete specifically to help resolve AFD in the right manner. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's mere facility. And why isn't Google contributing for all this free linking and SEO? BusterD (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because they don't have to? Wikipedia is essentially taking advantage of free services Google is providing, and if Google indirectly benefits then it's a mutually advantageous arrangement. Also, I think you'll have to explain what COI there is with Wikipedia using Google for the basis of convenience links for search engines, it's not nearly as obvious as you seem to think. -- Atama頭 23:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Atama and Masem, I am curious as to your proposed solution. How would you propose changing the "Find sources" line - while still being able to keep the list of links compact, simple (ie: one-click), and reliable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a solution; I have a valid concern. Wikipedia doesn't have to choose one particular search platform over all others, just because it's the most popular and high-performing as of this datestamp. It will be difficult to find an appropriate comparison, but I'll attempt one, albeit imperfect. Let's say that some important Wikipedia function, let's say the admin bit, only functioned with editors using Microsoft operating systems as a platform. For some particular technological reason, the only way blocking and protecting worked was with editors running Windows. Much like the situation I've described above, Wikipedia would be choosing a market winner. In this case of search engines there's only a superior advantage of functionality (at the current time), yet the community has sanctioned this favoritism of a company in a particular formal way. Google takes advantage of Wikipedians' voluntary contributions to make money. Wikipedia gets the same thing every Google user gets: free links to information. I ask for the third time, has this ever been discussed? Where? Who made this call? BusterD (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I might not ever have been discussed (I don't know of anywhere it has been, anyway), but WP:SILENCE applies. No one's objected until now, so it's assumed not to be controversial. So... Unless you think there's an issue with using Google, I don't see what there is to do here. lifebaka++ 00:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In the case of my example above, in such an obvious case of dependency, we'd have technological solutions constructed. No longer silent, someone has to raise an issue for the first time. While I don't doubt the good faith of the editors in this discussion, I have every reason to believe that a company like Google has many paid employees who monitor the quantity and type of links between the two internet institutions. Sure would like an answer to my question about discussion. I might link to this discussion on Jimbo's talk. BusterD (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

BuseterD, check out User:Kim_Bruning/Lost_functionalities for some added insight. Your fellow unpaid Google employee, Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link. I'll read. I'm not trying to stir crap, I just thought while my title was somewhat provocative, I've raised a legitimate issue. And since Google knows my real name and address, I suspect I've signed my own death warrant. (that's a joke, actual Google employees, ok? Really, a joke.) BusterD (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think basically it's because WP:We don't care what happens to your website. It just isn't important. Also, the links at AFD are on pages that pretty much only a handful of editors (rather than our millions of readers) see. The typical AFD page gets 30 views in the course of a full week's discussion. Only a small number of those page views will result in someone clicking the link. Google is unlikely to even notice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean, WP:We don't care what happens to your website (unless it's Google). We certainly don't care about Yahoo, Ask, or Bing. Google, we seem to be defending (as an institution) in several formal and informal ways. BusterD (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

BusterD, the best thing to do is write an essay about your concerns. Make sure you provide alternate proposals for consideration. Then, present it here (or elsewhere) as a link for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sound advice. I'm certainly not trying to put anyone on the defensive. I hope nobody takes it unkindly if I use the redlinked title above (but in my userspace, not project space). Still am nervous about those black helicopters circling in the rainstorm above. BusterD (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually think BusterD's proposal is a great one. I won't argue that Google is the best service, but I will argue that all of the search engines have different algorithms and you have a good chance of finding different results on each.--v/r - TP 13:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Links

What about abbreviate the searches? G for google, B for Bing, Y for Yahoo. We don't need the full names. Example:

(Find sources: "Subject" (G:B:Y) – news · books · scholar · free images)

What do you think?--v/r - TP 13:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A number of alternative templates exist with links chosen as the most useful rather than just Google. Compare at Category:Search templates. It would be easy to have a random choice too, not sure how acceptable this would be for most users though. It might be an idea to think of designing an extension to the current template (i.e. the only change would be a "more..." button) that then optionally opens up to show a selection of alternates. We could then think of a poll for swapping links once users have a while to play with other sites. Fæ (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think random would be a bad idea, editors should know what to expect when they click the search links. I don't see a problem with adding more options though. Monty₈₄₅ 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that random doesn't suit the nature of searches. Searches are about choices. It's somewhat revealing that the only templates categorized by company are the Google ones. This belies the assertion "we don't care what happens to your website." I think the approach User:TParis makes is a useful one, like tabs across the top of a WikiProject space. One click gives a different set of options. More choices is good, so long as (pointed out by editors above) the whole thing doesn't become cumbersome and slow anyone down. The effort to find and apply sources should be as effortless as possible, IMHO. The simpler and more elegant the technological solution, the better for now and for later. (After all, we're merely ten years in; imagine what the search engine options will be as more institutions digitize their existing resources.) BusterD (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I realized this issue is pretty comparable to the ISBN solution used to present links to multiple book sources. However, for practical purposes, I still think it's better to keep the links simple (ie: one-click, not needing to navigate through a sub-page as is done for ISBN links).

Ideally, I believe the best solution would be to have the "My Preferences" menu include a drop-down to allow each user to select a preferred search provider ... then a template able to utilize that preference to present custom links to each user who views a link formed with that template. But, that would be time-consuming to develop once proposed to the Village Pump. Barring that, as an interim solution, I have no major objection to providing multiple links as long as the presentation of multiple links can be kept compact (perhaps via a collapse/expand toggle for the search template).

It would still remain to decide which ones to link. Maybe Google, Bing, Ask, and AOL? Last I heard, Yahoo uses Bing as its search engine - so those results would be redundant to a Bing link - although I could see an argument if some users prefer the layout of those results in Yahoo over Bing.

Also, the proposal above only presents alternates to the main search ... but the additional links in that template would have alternates possible (ie: news · books · scholar · free images). Once alternates are provided to all of these, any template could quickly grow to a rather bulky header block. I would want to see proposals for how to manage all of the links in an easy to navigate and compact format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - A drop-down menu with multiple search options (stated by user:Barek above) would, in my opinion, be a significant improvement. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Perhaps the addition of a link such as this to the "find sources" line at the top of discussions would provide more comprehensive search options: Additional News Sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Another idea is to add this type of a link to a Wikipedia page which lists additional reliable news sources that have a reputation for editorial integrity and unbiased coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would very much support removing the link to web searches entirely. We should be encouraging users to default to Books, News archive and Scholar before bothering with a web search, since the former three concentrate reliable sources, and we have lots of problems with people using web only, or at least going there first, and the current setup fosters this by placing the web link first (it's not as if people don't know how to do a web search afterwards, if they want to). If we are to include any web links then they should appear after the others. I would have no problem in placing others there as a matter of "sheer facility" but only because it might be a benefit to our users. This may seem slightly tangential but it's not. Google is the only game in town for what we really need. This has nothing to do with allegiance or favoritism to Google and everything to do with usefulness for ourselves and our users. Whether it's fair to other search engines doesn't enter the equation because the reason we link to Google is completely unbiased. If Wikipedia was a free hostel and AfD was where scrambled eggs were served, Google would be a fork manufacturer and other search engines would provide only steak knives. Yes, it's "sheer facility", and what's wrong with that?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, in an internet where nothing stays the same for long, putting all your eggs in one online basket would be a poor choice indeed. I wouldn't do it with a grocery store, I wouldn't do it with a pizza parlor, I wouldn't do it with an operating system. I certainly wouldn't do it with a web browser. Getting in bed with one vendor exclusively not only gives the vendor an initial advantage, but it gives the vendor leverage which can be used against you when they make changes in policy. And policies will always change. The recent New York Times paywall is one such policy change which could have a long-term negative effect; since many history cluster editors have been regularly linking to Times articles as historical news sources. When the vendor decides to put more books or more scholars behind a paywall or some other profit-based change (which seems likely if not inevitable), then all the links we're putting in to cite pagespace will have a larger effect to advertise one vendor exclusively. That's what's wrong. Today is fine; it's ten years down the road I'm concerned about. Maybe I'm concerned about nothing; maybe I have a point. Jimbo seems to take a bit of both sides, and that's perfectly fine with me. BusterD (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But the problem I'm getting at is that the only real "eggs" for these search engines are books, news archive ans Scholar, which happen to be Google services. Web is the last search anyone should try, and I don't see any reason we shouldn't include links to others for web searches, but web searches should be put in the back room, put at the end as an afterthought. Meanwhile, there is no free search service that has any useful comparative tool to news archive, books and scholar. Worldcat is near useless for what we need. NYT.com is just one newspaper that is already searched by Google News. Again, there is no allegiance to Google, it's all about utility, and nothing else provides the utility. So I don't care what the name brand is, and if another brand pops up that provides a better utility not only would we switch without qualm, but doing so would be a few minutes work. Accordingly, I think the concern over "ten years from now" is a red herring.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To use another example, why aren't we linking to WorldCat in "find sources"? IMHO, it's a way more reliable search engine for books and authors than Google; the difference is that Google links to actual content, where WorldCat merely gives extremely good information on where to find the works in a library. BusterD (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example of internet policy creep and effects thereof: Like many, I enjoy watching "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" online. I preferred online viewing because of the fewer commercials than cable TV. At first, I watched these shows on their respective Comedy Central websites linked from Viacom, and they inserted one commercial between the clips. Then they moved to two commercials. These days, there's a Comedy Central commercial at the top of the show, then a couple of commercials, then several (often as many of four) between the segments. Of course, I could watch on Hulu, and if I pay for HuluPlus, I can even watch on my mobile device. These days, the Viacom sites work less reliably, so I'm stuck with Hulu. I'm not saying Viacom is forcing me to use HuluPlus, but the trend is obvious, and not accidental. Let's apply this anecdotal analysis to my concern here: In my view, when Google has Wikipedia lined up exactly the way they like it, they could conceivably drop a paywall down, and our only option would be to remove the links we've applied on millions of articles, or put our users in the position of paying for access. Now one strategy for dealing with this is to "relax and enjoy it", and another might be to protest the Google campus, but the wrong approach would be to hold our hands over our eyes and ears and sing la-la-la. IMHO, ignoring the inevitable can't be considered a reasonable strategy. I'll concede my examples aren't precisely applicable, but close enough to demonstrate my concern. BusterD (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it works today, I'm not certain why we'd need to change it today. When things change, we can change things, this isn't controversial. Now, we still might want to change the way we're doing things, but the possibility of circumstances outside of our control changing in the future isn't a good thing to base changes here off of.

As for GBooks vs. WorldCat, generally the former is going to be more immediately useful in an AfD, where users might not be able to locate a copy of the book (suppose, for instance, that it's checked out) and a relevant passage in it within an AfD's seven day time limit. I'm also unsure of how useful WorldCat would be if I didn't already have a good idea of what I was looking for (i.e. book title, author, etc.). We should certainly make WorldCat more prominent and encourage its use to find sources (I wasn't aware of it until just now, for instance), but I'm not at all convinced of its utility for AfD specifically. We also ought to look into how both platforms choose their results, as two searches for the text "wikipedia censorship" (without quotes) returns 10 hits on WorldCat and about 1600 on GBooks, with none of the first page GBooks results being the 10 WorldCat results. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I disagree violently that we should wait to respond to change even if we can see it coming down the road. To paraphrase R. Buckminster Fuller (I think from the beginning of Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth): "Imagine you're on a boat at sea, and the boat sinks. Swimming around, you come across a piano lid, and you climb on. When the rescue comes, you're fine. You may feel strongly about your survival, you may even grow to have an attachment to the design. But just because the piano lid was successful in your situation doesn't mean it's the optimal design for a life preserver. That's what we do every day; we latch onto piano lids as we're swimming by. What we should do is think hard about such situations BEFORE they arise." (Sorry, Buck, if I've misinterpreted you. You know you're my main guy.) I don't disagree that Google provides a better product, but WorldCat is a valuable professional research tool available for free as well (at present), and shouldn't be disregarded as an essential search tool. Putting all our search eggs in one corporate basket is just foolish, given the history of the internet. (I'll confess to watching James Burke's Connections series on YouTube the last few weeks, so I've been thinking hard about the way the future will change the internet.) Hey, I may be wrong; but I could be channeling Willie Stark, too. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But... We don't see anything coming, right? That's rather the point. Of course, if we know something is likely to happen, we should prepare for it, but I don't see the point in making changes based on vague possibilities. I'm not aware of anything coming up that we'd need to adapt to, and I haven't seen you point out anything specific either. The OMfSE example is disingenuous, because on a seafaring ship you're perfectly aware of the possibility of falling into the water (for one reason or another), whereas you are asserting we should prepare for some vague and undefined possible future. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly before. lifebaka++ 04:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say disingenuous is a poor choice of words, because (with no evidence but my own 22-year experience with the internet) I do imagine at least one Google profit-raising policy change coming in the next ten years, and probably more than one. That's what my NYT/Daily Show experience examples represent, a patient corporate ramp-up of profit-intended practice. Fuller's point was that we never consider these things at all until it's too late, then we grab onto the first available solution, or hang on more tightly to the ones we've used in the past, even if impractical. If consensus doesn't agree with my position, I can handle that. For my part, I'd prefer to be candid about what I see as red flags down the road instead of saying "I told you so" afterwards (my Willie Stark metaphor). Even now I'd say the mere appearance of gfavoritism improves their stock value. Are you saying we shouldn't consider investing in a poncho or an umbrella just because the weather looks fine today? BusterD (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The search links are made by Template:Find sources which is also used in other places. There is a discussion from 2010 at Template talk:Find sources#Why only Google links? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hasty nomination of new articles.

Case. A new editor creates at 12:30, in his first edit on the English Wikipedia, a new article. His next edit, also to the article, is at 12:32, adding an interwiki link. At 12:33, a second editor nominates the article for deletion, stating that "this is not a encyclopedic content". This case is not alone; I see such hasty nominations by new-page patrollers all the time. Although this article will probably kept (most recommendations are to keep it as being notable), such a hasty reaction is obviously demoralizing to most newcomers. Nominators should give new articles that may well still be under active development, especially if created by new editors, a fighting chance.

Currently, the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says, under Before nominating an article for deletion / C. Be aware that some pages should be improved rather than deleted:

2.  If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

Should, perhaps, this gentle exhortation be phrased more sternly? And might a generalization of {{uw-hasty}} to other forms of deletion be in order? It currently only covers speedy-deletion tagging.  --Lambiam 23:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be good if AfD nomination were made into a user right, a user right that wasn't too hard to acquire, but could be removed by an admin.  Right now there seems to be no feedback into the system for a variety of nomination issues.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree with the feeling that articles are being too agressively removed from Wikipedia. I was surprised to see that many of those nominating material for deletion have not contributed anything themselves. Looks like many here get their kicks from destroying contributions made by others? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I also came across an example recently where a lot of work had gone into the article, but the editors had not added it to any relevant wikiprojects (probably from lack of experience). The editors who are best qualified to assess the article may have no idea that it exists, let alone that it is being nominated for deletion. Nominators for AfD's should be required to make an effort to find appropriate projects and notify them. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good point, if the wiki-project is active. In my experience most wiki-projects are dead, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD templates and non-Latin names

A couple of recent AfDs have changed consensus recently from delete to keep once a speaker of the native language of the topic was above to provide the name of the topic in the native language for us to find references. The most recent example was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Case_of_Arakcheev_and_Khudyakov, but I've seen them for Hindi and Arabic topics too. The issue seems to be largely restricted to names in non-Latin languages. Would it be possible to update the AfD templates so that alternative language names specified as per MOS:BOLDTITLE could be lifted out of the first sentence and placed in the google search query? If that's not possible, would it be possible for a bot to add extra google search queries? I'm aware that not all foreign topics include their local names and not all of those that include them have them formatted correctly, but I'm hoping for a virtuous circle of reinforcement here. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe articles proposed for deletion (not only AFDs) should be categorized first? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Linking proposal

You know how you open an individual AFD and at the top there's a link to the main AFD page? I was wondering that, since many people come to AFDs from the date page, if there should be a link not only to the main AFD page, but to the date page on which the AFD is posted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Try the View log link: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log). It uses <includeonly> and <noinclude> to switch between View AfD (on the daily log) and View log (on the individual AfD). Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Movember is not part of No Shave November

Movember is its own entity, a 501 (c) (3) charity and not any part of No Shave November, a facial hair growing contest. Movember became an official charity in Melbourne Australia in 2004, and moved to the US, UK, and Canada in 2007. Although the Washington Post article mistakenly puts the two together, the two have never been connected. Movember is part of the Movember Foundation, which has no business or charitable connection to No Shave November. (96.251.72.119 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

That may be a good point, however this is the wrong place to make it. You should instead raise these issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-Shave November. --Jayron32 19:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Sourcing search" link needs adding

B.2 says 'See "Sourcing search" below', but no such section (or text) exists. Ideally, this should be linked to something appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

At the top of every properly filed AFD should be a collection of links to various google searches. You can find it there. --Jayron32 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly copy of another article?

Suffolk University Madrid Campus appears to have been done as a copy of Suffolk University some information changed that is unique to the main US campus but not much. Should this article be viewed as salvagable or is an AFD (or even a speedy) make sense?Naraht (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to delete it. Just propse a merge to the parent article, per WP:MERGE. Less mess of a process. --Jayron32 02:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Suffolk University Madrid Campus is indeed an unattributed copy of Suffolk University, with very small changes (cross-page diff). My opinion is that deleting to remove the attribution dependency and rewriting a stub if desired would be best. In terms of speedy deletion, A10 (duplicate article) doesn't seem to fit (the Madrid Campus is a distinct topic), and G12 (copyvio) will be accepted or rejected depending on the reviewing admin. Flatscan (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Converting to disambiguation page

From time to time, a participant in an AFD discussion will suggest converting the nominated article into a disambiguation page in lieu of deletion; and, sometimes, this suggestion will be implemented by the closing admin. Some of these proposals are appropriate; but, unfortunately, sometimes the proposers are unfamiliar with the disambiguation guidelines and don't realize that the disambiguation page they are proposing is inconsistent with those guidelines. WikiProject Disambiguation generally isn't aware of these proposals until after they have been implemented. Is there any way that the Disambiguation project could be notified whenever a proposal is made in an AFD discussion to convert an article to a disambig page? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

problem with AFD template/twinkle

Im noticing a problem with some of the AFDs I create via twinkle. It appears that somehow there are two AFD discussion pages getting created (or rather, a link may be pointing to the wrong page, so that a second one is later created by clicking the link?)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_Sensor_Networks (created automatically by twinkle, including my comment for nomination. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Body_Sensor_Networks (apparently created by the user somehow, Im assuming via one of the links in the template. but I cant find where. )

Gaijin42 (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Sorry about that – blame me and Steven Walling. We're running an A/B test on PROD and AfD notices sent by Twinkle, and in the process of slashing some of the excess verbiage in the templates, I think we pruned one too many curly brackets and took out the {{{order|}}} code. Will put back in. Thanks for your vigilance and let me know if you experience any more problems! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the two current TW templates being tested -- {{AfD-notice-rand/new}} and {{AfD-notice-rand/default}} -- to match the linking syntax at {{AfD-notice}}. Please let me know if there are any further issues, or drop a note at WT:TW. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I've just double checked the cases you're talking about, and it looks like the user just did that because they were confused. The only links back to that AFD talk page are from here where you linked to it, so it's not a template linking error. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ive had this happen to me on several previous AFDs. I cant believe there are that many people trying to create AFD pages manually to respond, when the link is right on the page. . Is it possible the link destination is changing somehow? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay so I just saw this happen on one of my AFD noms. However, I am still unsure because once again, when you check what links there, there is nothing... so I don't think it's a template link error. I suspect these editors are just confused because they're being invited to edit the AFD, but are used to leaving comments only on talk pages; they don't understand. If you want to look at the two templates in use they are link in comment above. You can also see live examples of their use if you look at what links to {{z81}} and {{z82}}, which are invisible tracking templates. If this continues, I may add a note in the new template that explicitly says not to go to the talk page. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot to correct new AfD's that weren't added to the log

I've been noticing a lot of AfD's being created recently that haven't been added to the daily log. Most of them are probably the result of a Twinkle bug that has been around for quite awhile, and seems to have flared up again. I'm looking for some input on whether it would be useful to have a bot which patrols new AfD's and checks that they've been added to the log page for the day. If not, it would add the AfD to the correct log page, and post a brief message on the AfD. Would that be useful? Are there any other useful tasks the bot could perform while it's patrolling the AfD's? —SW— ^chatter 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a useful idea, but I have some questions.Which day's log would it add the AfD to, the current one regardless of date of creation? (if so, then it should make a note in the AfD about the time of listing, particularly if it is on a later day's log) What will it do with AfD tags that lack discussions, AfD tags that point to old, closed discussions, AfD discussions for articles that are not tagged, and malformed AfD discussions? It could be more useful to create a tracking reports of newly created problem AfD discussions for human review, rather then just automatically transcluding them. There are already some reports, but they don't identify newly created discussions that are not transcluded, only old AfDs generally, and new ones that have a problem with the discussion, but that doesn't check transclusion status. Monty₈₄₅ 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you bring up some good points. Initially, when the bot first starts running, it would likely find a number of AfD's that were not transcluded, and have been around for far longer than 7 days. These should probably just be added to the current day's log and given another 7 days, with a prominent note added to the AfD. However, after the bot has dealt with these AfD's and starts running continuously, this situation shouldn't happen anymore. Instead, the bot would patrol CAT:AFD, and check that any new articles which appear there have been transcluded to the appropriate log.

Your other comments bring up some other interesting tasks that the bot could perform. Here's what I would propose for the full task list of the bot so far:

Bot would automatically fix:

• For AfD pages in Category:AfD debates which haven't been transcluded to the appropriate log, it would automatically transclude them.
• For AfD pages in Category:AfD debates whose article hasn't been tagged with a deletion notice, it would automatically add a deletion notice.

Bot would compile a report for:

• Articles in Category:Articles for deletion which don't appear to have an AfD page.
• Articles in Category:Articles for deletion which have an AfD template with a redlinked target page.
• Articles in Category:Articles for deletion which have an AfD template with a target page which points to an already closed AfD.

For the problems that the bot would automatically fix, the bot would wait some time (5 or 10 minutes, most likely) after the AfD page was created before attempting to fix the problem, to avoid stepping on the toes of a human that is just taking a bit longer than usual to complete all the steps.

Does anyone see any problems with any of these tasks? Is there already a bot out there which performs any of these tasks? Any other tasks that should be added? Thanks. —SW— ^express 22:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote at AN/I, I think that User:DumbBOT used to fix the listings and leave a note on the AfDs. It hasn't done this for a while: see User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD (last updated July 2011) and User talk:DumbBOT#User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If Tizio is willing to restart his bot, then I'm ok with that. If not, I'd be happy to perform the task in DumbBOT's place. Someone has already left a question on User talk:DumbBOT about this task but hasn't received a response yet. —SW— ^confess 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• FYI: See User:Snotbot/AfD report for a report on AfD issues that can't be solved by a bot. It's stagnant for now, but will likely be updated at least hourly if/when the BRFA is approved. —SW— ^confess 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of process AfD discussion

I believe this requires the attention of an administrator who is familiar with WP:Deletion policy. There is an out of process deletion discussion on-going at Talk:Dominik Halmosi/AfD discussion. Will somebody please close this discussion and then open AfD's for the 10 affected articles. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion and linked to the instructions for how to do it properly. Hut 8.5 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

I have already nominated page Basant Bhattarai for deletion. Why hasn't it come here and no one else is responding on the page ? KS700 (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AFDHOWTO. You appear to have carried out step I, but step II does not appear to have been followed properly, and step III has not been followed at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you or anyone do all the remaining steps for me as i am having difficulty in doing it. KS700 (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded redirect

Hi, no big deal but someone might want to get rid of Earth's palarity. I don't think we need redirects from random typos/misspellings... 86.181.169.8 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can tag such redirects as {{db-r3}}, db (delete because) tags are used to tag pages for speedy deletion. A complete list of db tags and their rationales are listed at WP:CSD. --Jayron32 04:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A serious discussion on Articles for Discussion?

If there was any doubt that AfD, at the moment, is a joke, the recent closure of the iOS version history AfD has removed it. It shows how bereft of actual discussion AfD is; of the thirty or so "keep" votes, about 80% of them used "keep, it's useful" or similar variants as the only reason for keeping an article that unquestionably violated WP:NOT at the time of its nomination (and would still fail under the proposed change to the guideline) and could not be reasonably edited to a state where it wouldn't fail NOT.

Part of the reason why AfD doesn't work as well as it should do is because, despite the process page saying it's not, it's more or less an up-or-down vote on retention, and not focused on article improvement. The point-scoring attitude is probably one of the more toxic things about the current AfD, and would be greatly reduced by a move to a more discussion-based AfD. There's also a potential problem with people claiming that a "keep" at AfD means that all content in the article must stay in that article; if I were to attempt to pare down the iOS version history page to better satisfy NOT, I'd probably meet a lot of resistance for that reason.

I'm aware that this is a perennial proposal, but I feel that we should seriously discuss how to improve AfD, especially as the last serious discussion was actually in favour of doing such a thing. I've posted specifics below so as not to break RfC. Wikipedia is nearing 11 years of age, and I think we should depart from what has degraded back into VfD-lite in favour of actual article improvement. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Basically, I envision combining the merge and deletion processes, as most of these proposals do, along with some minor processes such incubation. All of the standards of the current AfD would remain in place, but editors could then make actual specific comments of required improvements; incubation, a source check, merging, et cetera. Of course, deletion would still require a concrete majority consensus to do so. Added 00:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC): Non-administrators, where a solid consensus existed and admin tools weren't needed, could close discussions after a consensus was needed

I'm not convinced that there will be too much of a workload, either. Current-AfD constitutes around 90% of the deletion-and-merging process discussion, so bringing the remaining 10% in wouldn't make a drastic change; indeed, by removing the toxic AfD voting culture, it would inspire more people to participate. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• The AFD which led Sceptre to make a proposal for modifying the AFD process is an example of what belongs at deletion review. Did he take it there? It was full of "It's useful" and "People worked hard on it," which should have been ignored by the closing admin, along with "It's full of info you can't find elsewhere," which is in fact a strong reason for deletion. The closing admin does not generally announce a vote count as determinative of the Keep or Delete decision, and I have seen AFDs with evenly split !vote count closed as delete if the keep arguments are as weak as in this case. It also was not kept open for the full period. Placing a "merge" tag on an article sometimes works, but such an action does not draw very widespread attention and is easily thwarted by a couple of editors who like having a separate article about some minor aspect of something. "Merge" is a common outcome of AFD as is, without any "fix" of AFD. Not all merges should have to go through AFD. If the system is not broken, then instruction creep is not needed to fix it, so I say leave well enough alone. The AFD instructions already mention the possibility of listing a controversial proposed merge at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. The instructions also mention outcomes of redirecet, rename, userfy, or transwiki. Edison (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  My concerns with the current structure of AfD, however, go beyond that AfD. It's an endemic problem. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sceptre, have you considered that the problem with that AFD was not in the !votes or the close but by a lack of strong nomination? You linked to a policy and said "This is what the article is" and then proceeded to nominate two other articles. Had to written a well thought out, heavily policy backed, thorough nomination statement, you might've received a different result. As it was written, it appears to me you expected folks to agree with a "Per nom" and you didn't think anyone in their right mind could disagree with you.--v/r - TP 18:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that AfD. Too often, AfD is seen as an up-or-down vote on existence and articles which violate policy often get kept but the content that violates policy remains because a lot of people aren't bothered to actually fix problems (this is actually where Conservapedia has a decent principle (which they don't follow, natch) in the 90/10 rule: less navel gazing on ANI, more article writing). For example, Chronology of the Doctor Who universe is at AfD for the second time, after the first AfD was closed with "keep, but the sourcing problems need to be sorted out in the medium term". After nearly two years, the article hasn't been improved; if anything, the quality has got even worse. An "Articles for discussion" process would be better served to article improvement than "Articles for deletion" ever would; surely, we can have quality as well as quantity. (Also, that article violated the letter of NOT in such an obvious way it's not funny; you wouldn't delete a solely libellious article until someone showed exactly where it was, you'd just delete it) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea of Articles for Discussion. Let's do it this way. We'll create these things we'll call "Discussion" pages for every article and whenever someone wants to discuss the article they can use this hidden discussion page. Even better, if they need input from more users, we'll create an RFC template for them to add to draw users into a discussion. We'll even create a "ref improve" template to place at the top of the article so folks browsing know it needs refs.--v/r - TP 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cute, but not helping. Discussion pages are sorely underused, and a red/purple-fringed template is going to help more than a talk page. Articles for discussion should be a community process that recommends deletion, merging or community cleanup, like the various other XfDs have done since going the "for discussion" way. Votes for Deletion hasn't existed for six years, because the community didn't like the idea of voting to delete an article (and still doesn't). However, "X for deletion" in any form encourages voting, which is why a lot of processes went "for deletion" in the first place. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, when an article has zero deletion !votes, it doesn't matter how many are "It's Useful" (which is part of an essay, not a policy, I'll also note), it's not going to get a supervote to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The correct thing to do would be (in order of appropriateness) to relist, to close as "no consensus and cleanup", or to close as "keep but cleanup". "Speedy keep" was completely inappropriate for AfD. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about merges. In practice,we already do resolve the major merge problems at AfD. It's also the general atmosphere. The proper question most of the time is "what are we to do with this article", about which we then collect opinions, and find something most of us can live with. Making this a dichotomy hinders the attempts at compromise. It encourages unreasoning me-toos. It encourages the complementary attitudes of keep/delete everything. It causes false conflicts between the ideas of following consensus, and of following policy, which ought in a proper discussion to be identical. It encourages bitterness and divisions within the community. I suspect some of those who want to keep this a dichotomy might consciously or unconsciously do so because they positively enjoy the conflict. If there's two things we need less of at Wikipedia , it's conflict -- and spam. Spam gets mostly dealt with at Speedy. We can handle that, and have standards we all generally agree with. The ones that need to come here are the ones where there are several reasonable views on a matter, and there are two goals in dealing with them: protecting the integrity of Wikipedia article content, and encouraging proper editing, good editors, and civility. Personally, I think trying for compromise each time will lead to clearer deletions of what must be deleted, and perhaps fewer non-consensus, because we should generally be able to agree on something. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed that merge discussions, even for articles which have a large throughput, don't attract that much discussion. The article YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had a merge-from template for two weeks but the discussion only had one comment. On the other hand, AfDs get a load of discussion: the aforementioned iOS version history AfD had about thirty comments from newbies and veterans alike. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• There are three of fundamental questions that we try and use one process to address, to the detriment of either:
  • Should this be in the encyclopedia at all? That is, does it fail WP:NOT in some way, or otherwise violate our standards in such a manner that saving, rewriting, or merging is inappropriate.
  • If so, does this material meet our content standards? Here, we find the discussions centering around V, N, the GNG and triviality of RS'es. Somewhat in parallel, the answer to these informs the third question:
  • How should this be presented? Assuming the answer to the first two questions is yes, it then becomes a more nuanced question of how we should present things: List, category, both? Standalone article or merged into a bigger topic? Does one section need to be trimmed per UNDUE, or can the rest of the article be beefed up to match it? These are the editorial questions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• In general, I oppose funneling all merges through an AFD like process. Merges can be done and undone (reverted) by any editor, even anonymous editors. The process is therefore part of what I would term "regular editing" and we should avoid wrapping that process in red tape. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  I agree. In fact, one wonders why deletion is treated differently from other editorial decisions. If we're going to radically overhaul deletion process, then the WP:PERENial proposal we should be considering is WP:PWD. :-) causa sui (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Open AfDs

• There are a lot of post 7-day open AfDs just sitting around for an admin to close. Some may be "controversial," but the calls aren't really that hard. I could start IAR NAC closing them if we want extra drama?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If they can be closed without the use of tools, I've personally always supported NACs.--v/r - TP 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible that the reason for the backlog is the (too) large number of AFDs that are being started in the first place. Does anyone have any statistics on the number of AFDs over time? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have statistics on the number of articles deleted through AfD. Apart from a large spike in mid-2009 the number has stayed roughly constant at 1500-2000 deletions per month since early 2008. This is surprising since the total number of deletions of all types declined considerably over that period. If it's taking too long to close AfDs then I would blame a lack of closers since the number of active administrators has been in decline for some time now. Hut 8.5 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can anyone at wikipedia see those statistics? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose I could post them to my userspace if you really wanted to see them. Hut 8.5 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see some statistics posted at User:Hut 8.5 - but it is not clear if those statistics are general to Wikipedia or only to this particular administrator. Shouldn't these types of statistics be available for scrutiny to the general Wikipedian public? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers split by type of process, i.e., AFD vs CSD vs PROD vs none of the above (admin nuked on first sight). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, me too, not only a breakdown by AFD/CSD/PROD but also other deletions such as admin nuked at first sight AND re-directs that are sometimes being used as a sneaky way to get rid of information. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Deletion/Merger - Don Hickman

There seems to be two pages for the same person named "Don Hickman". There is the first page, Don Hickman, which was set for deletion and was contested. There is also a second page Don Hickman (newscaster) which was approved as an article. Can either the first article be removed or be merged into the other article? Mr Xaero (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you mention that at the existing AFD, which is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Hickman. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New Template

Hello, I've designed a very useful (it is of course also space-efficent and visually pleasing) new template that displays links to recent AfD logs. To see of an example of what it looks like, see the 11/21 log here (it's the first one on the page). I am looking for a consensus to put this template on the top of all log pages of AfD's for a particular day. I encourage people to take a look at its code (I've triple-checked it but new eyes are always good). I hope others agree with me that this template would be a valuable addition to the log pages as an added, unobtrusive convenience. Thanks,  M   Magister Scienta^talk (21 November 2011)

Looks good. My only beef with it is the improper apostrophe in "AfD's", which should be "AfDs" because it's not a possessive. Other than that, I like it. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear. Thanks for spotting that error, I promptly changed all the wording to "AfDs" and moved the name of the template and its subpages (including its documentation page). The template is now called Template:Recent AfDs. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 22:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First name disambigations - deletion of

Please see my comments at Template_talk:Given_name#Too_much_disambiguation.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Srivatsa Ramaswami proposed for deletion

The article Srivatsa Ramaswami appears to not meet the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. Please consider this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithS77 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please follow all the steps listed at WP:AFDHOWTO. I see that you've previously tried to do this but only completed step I (adding {{subst:afd1}} to the article page), which was reverted after three hours because the remaining steps had not been carried out. You'll need to do that again, and then steps II and III must be followed as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sierra McCormick

I believe that this actress is notable, and was deleted a bit too hasty. She does pass WP:ENT, as stated by several others. Tinton5 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:DELETE#Deletion review. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject has already been put through deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 23. Tinton5 simply feels that the subject was unjustly deleted. Furthermore, the original AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra McCormick, clearly shows a consensus was not met. Wizardman (talk · contribs) (the deleting administrator) deleted it from his discretion when "no consensus" should have been the final answer, not deletion. Perhaps putting it through Deletion review, yet again is needed now. If it is overturned, I recommend using this draft: User:Jaxsonista/Sierra McCormick. QuasyBoy 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have a sourced draft which you believe determines notability then take it to deletion review and try to get a consensus there to unprotect the page. Posting here isn't going to help you at all. Hut 8.5 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DRV is not necessary, when additional improvements have been made such that the editor placing the content back in mainspace believes in good faith that, due to subsequent improvements, deletion rationale no longer applies. We don't do prior restraint on article recreation except in a rather limited set of circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)