Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SheepLinterBot (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 20 February 2023 ([t. 1] fix font tags linter errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Early closures

I was just skimming over some of the current logs, and one thing that I'm noticing is that there are an awful lot of early closures of discussions being made. I don't really want to be critical of this practice, so much as I'm simply curious about the rational for it. Has there been general agreement that this is a widely acceptable practice? The good news is that, based on my cursory view of what's going on, there doesn't seem to be any bias to the early closures. Although... I'm almost tempted to say that they seem too random, which has been a deletion criticism in general for quite a long time now.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed the latest discussions on this, but IIRC early closures have been frowned upon a bit. If anything, the trend seems to be towards longer discussion with the move from 5 to 7 days for AfD and PROD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "early"? SNOW closes, when there's truly no chance of a reversal in the outcome, are generally good, in that they free up people's time and attention for other things. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
well... looking back, I am noticing now that several of them were relisted discussions. Some are "withdrawn" results, as well. There are still a few ostensibly "SNOW" type closures, although what I'm noticing is that the admin(s) who are doing it aren't using that as a justification. I'm not sure that I could argue that the closes are actually wrong in any way either, which is a large part of the reason that I don't want to be critical here. It's just... I don't see what the big hurry is. There's just an uncomfortable sense of hastiness about that I guess I don't understand.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is possible to close a relisted discussion early. It's had it's seven days, and while a relisting is not sudden-death overtime, any admin can and should go through at any time where a consensus has been reached, or it's clear that no consensus is forming, and close such discussions appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well yea, right, that's why I made a point to mention that I noticed that a good portion of them are relisted. Still, that's not all of them... And, from just glancing at the replies below, thre still seems to be something worth having a conversation about.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion last month WT:Deletion process#Made change to relist policy: stay open for 7 days, but it looks like the proposed change was reverted. Some closers may be patrolling Category:Relisted AfD debates. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Worse are the early non-admin closures. They should be banned outright. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    meh... different subject really, but I personally don't see what the problem is with NAC's, early or otherwise. There's really no good reason that admins should be the only people allowed to close. Wikipedia has eschewed that sort of elitism for a long time, now.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    And if a non-admin closes early because it's become moot (such as the article has been speedily deleted), I can't see any problem there. In fact, I'm not sure that a NAC is problematic per se. If the close would have been proper if an admin did it, it's still a proper close. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Like Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I normally go through the 7-day-old log at 'round 0:00 UTC and relist everything that doesn't have enough participation, and if I see a debate that's a straightforward close, I just close it since I'm already there anyway. Tim Song (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If every single person says keep, and the nominator withdraws their nomination, admitting they made a mistake, then it should be snow keep. Otherwise, there is no possible excuse for closing it early. Even if the first few people to show up and comment said delete, that doesn't mean other won't find sources and make an article which is kept. I've seen some cases where hordes of people just say delete, without taking the time to click the Google news search at the top, and find plenty of news coverage of the person, thing, or event. Dream Focus 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ... and we've all seen cases where hordes of people say "keep" because they don't take the time to actually read and evaluate their Google searches. But early closes - either way - are no bad thing. Some nominations are clearly speedy deletion candidates, others are clearly mistaken or misinformed nominations. No opinion on non-admin closure, as I know little about it.   pablohablo. 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • When one I had closed was taken to DRV recently, one of the objections raised was that it had not been allowed its full 7 days; I was relieved to be able to quote the times to show that it had actually had seven days plus a few hours. I think the full time should be allowed, except in SNOW cases, to avoid possible complaints later. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That's actually a subtly wrong and harmful reason. Once the outcome is clear, process has served its purpose. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a court of law. Slavish adherence to process just because someone might object to a process deviation rather than the outcome gives too much power to the complainers. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
      • This is an interesting reply, I think. I assume that you're stating that the DRV was "subtly wrong and harmful". I understand what you're point is, and I'll even agree to it, but at the same time I can disagree with it as well. I don't think that SNOW itself should be deprecated or anything, but it should be relatively rare. I don't know that using it simply because there have been half a dozen votes which agree with each other is a good thing.
        — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't point the finger at the DRV process, just those who start a DRV based on process, rather than outcome. If the !votes are running 20 to 4 with good policy supporting the 20, closing a discussion a day early isn't going to hurt anything, because one more day isn't going to legitimately (i.e. absent canvassing) change anything. Contra Abductive's reasoning below, it's not necessary for every editor to comment, only for enough editors to comment to demonstrate consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Yea, don't get me wrong here, I think that we generally agree... I just think that even SNOW style closures should be relatively rare is all, even if it's obvious to everyone that doing so would be appropriate. If it's that obvious then leaving it open until day (5, or 7, or whatever) shouldn't really affect anything. One case where I could see a relatively quick SNOW closure being appropriate is for the current event type of articles; generally, articles which are high profile. Perversely though, my sense is that there is an inverse relationship between the profile of an article and the willingness of editors/admins to show initiative and close a discussion (which is probably generally true overall, not only in the case of SNOW type closures). The discussions where there is little if any urgency tend to be closed instead, which is probably where most of my discomfort is coming from, rather then the number of occurrences.
            — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Orly Taitz is a shining example of why Wikipedia sucks at this. One user dragged an AfD discussion out for weeks arguing about process, when the outcome was crystal clear. It's not just "high profile" articles, really, but political articles that seem to garner the most discussions, as if the AfD banner seems to be the desired outcome, warning readers off. That sort of nonsense, gaming the system in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, should be ended. But as you rightly point out, admins who do the right thing in such cases are guaranteed a trip to DRV, if not ANI. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Yea, I see what you're getting at. This is the sort of area where getting into specifics can kind of lead us to trouble, though. The relatively current (if not outright current) articles, especially those with political content, will naturally struggle some with attached emotional issues. Editors are obviously human beings, and aside from the fact that it's really impossible to separate the emotional aspects of topics for people I don't think that editors trying to emulate Spock would be helpful to the project. The thing is, the state of an article right now, or even a month from now, isn't really that important in the scheme of things. That shouldn't be an excuse to do nothing of course, but we should also try to maintain our reactions at a manageable level. That includes preventing crafting policy/procedure that seeks to "fix" or "prevent" the worst case scenarios. As with most things there's a middle ground here somewhere, and that's normally the spot to seek out and inhabit. There's going to be battlegrounding occasionally... it's just going to happen. As long as it's somewhat rare though, as it currently seems to be, then I don't think that it's worth being too concerned about.
                — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Any AfD that is remotely controversial should be allowed 7 days, or more. I want to see it appear on the list of open discussions in the Old Discussions section. If it is closed early, especially by a non-admin, it means that I may not have a chance to comment. I am a member of the Wikipedia community, and if I am not given a chance to comment on controversial nominations, it means that community input is not respected. Abductive (reasoning) 07:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Abductive's point is a good one. Here is another: For the sake of the argument suppose there are exactly two kinds of admins, those who follow the rules precisely and those who don't care about rules and always do what they want. Then almost all AfDs will be closed by admins of the second kind. I find the thought very worrying.
I wonder if there is a technical solution. Could we have a template for AfDs that displays "This discussion will be open for another x days and yy:zz hours. Under normal circumstances it should not be closed earlier." And once the time is over it says: "This discussion can be closed by an admin." Hans Adler 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This would require the AFD template to become a dated template, like Dated Prod, and have a subst'd wrapper template around it, like Prod. But it could be done, yes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like something that would be worth exploring, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As {{afd2}} is already subst:'d, this wouldn't be technically difficult. However, I think it might lend too much to the argument that an AfD should last at least 604800 seconds, and we'd like to avoid being too wonky here if possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with this. Too much process wonkery. PROD uses uncontested time, XfD lasts until a clear consensus is achieved. Apples and oranges, folks. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Last time we discussed this there were a lot of admins active closing AfDs with no clear consensus half a day before they were due. I considered that a problem. If that no longer happens it's fine. I have no idea because I rarely follow AfD. Hans Adler 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand this criticism. I don't see how having something on a timer of some sort equates to "process wonkery". ...accepting the "XfD lasts until a clear consensus is achieved" statement at face value, we could remove all references to time from the process, literally continuing the discussion until someone closes it. That may be worth at least thinking about as well (although, I think that having a deadline of some sort actually helps the process, overall).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • PROD is entirely based on three things: 1) nominator nominates, 2) no one else contests for one week, and 3) closing admin's judgment and eligibility verification.
  • XfD is based on 1) Nomination rationale, 2) 0..N additional !votes supplied by other editors, and 3) an admin's interpretation of the rough consensus, which is generally judged at about 7 days, but may happen sooner or later.
You see how the time element is vastly different in importance between the two? Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Honestly? Not really, no. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and... well, that view may be an ideal, but my impression is that is not the manner which most people view XfD (I will admit to some bias here however, since I don't share the view that the above is ideal). Abductive certainly doesn't seem to share the view that the time element is so soft. I could overlook it if that view seemed to be rare, but I think that convincingly framing it as a fringe view would be challenging. More importantly though, the instructions on the front of this page are not nearly as soft regarding the time element as you seem to be making is out to be.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I totally agree, and posted below to say exactly the same thing! AfDs are being closed a day early for no apparent reason other than impatience. I've already asked one admin to reopen one they closed over a day early, and I will start administering trouts soon. Fences&Windows 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I've only closed those of December 6 (on the 13th (UTC)), not those of December 7 (and those of the 5th on the 12th) and I close only those of which they are a clear consensus which has no chance of switch directions - otherwise I keep them open or I relist them (if there isn't enough discussion). Closing clear consensus discussions basically at the start of Day 7 (00:00 UTC) like some other admins shouldn't be much of an issue. It's very doubtful that a 5-0 or 10-0 deletion vote would reverse in just a matter of a couple of hours. --JForget 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that you've inadvertently highlighted the problem that we're attempting to point out here. It should only take one well thought out !vote, one way or another, to decide things. This idea that "well, it was 10-0 so obviously this can be closed" is just... bad. I mean, 99.9% of the time you're not really doing anything that will make a difference, but there's also (normally) 0 cost to leaving things until the normal discussion period has ended (some obvious exceptions should of course be made, for essentially speedy closures). Not treating AFD as a vote is important because it keeps editors from becoming super-emotional about things more so then treating every discussion on the merits of the arguments. When you create a voting situation that leads to panicked editors, which leads to competativeness and canvassing, and really just bad blood all around. Leaving AFD's open won't solve those problems, but it will certainly prevent that sort of a problem.
        — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no way to tell when a good argument one way or other will come, and change the issue. Unless this is really definitive, the closing admin should probably do better to relist and let it be fully discussed--what appears to solve the problem one way or the other may after all be wrong, Perhaps the best tule for SNOW is the rule for IAR, that nobody could reasonably object. A objection from a WPedian acting in good faith to a snow is sufficient cause to re-open, and perhaps that should be explicit in the policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is no longer a satisfactory reason to close an AfD early. The criteria for early closure are given in WP:Speedy delete and WP:Speedy keep as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. If the early close criteria are not met, then the case stays open for the full seven days. There's never any harm done in letting an AfD run for the full seven days, but problems can occur when discussions are closed too soon. If someone is seen closing too early, then a gentle tap on the shoulder to indicate WP:NotEarly might be helpful. SilkTork *YES! 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SNOW is not not-applicable. SNOW is an IAR implementation, and as such it never needs local endorsement to be applicable, nor can it be made non-applicable without de-policy-ifying IAR. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There may be sensible reasons to close an AfD early which are not given in WP:NotEarly, in which case IAR would apply. But SNOW is not one of those reasons. IAR does not apply if the activity is detrimental to the project. Closing an AfD early under SNOW is detrimental to the project. And bear in mind that an aspect of SNOW that people forget is: "when in doubt allow discussions to take place"! SilkTork *YES! 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"This page is not a policy or guideline itself; it is intended as a guide to a specific application of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Ignore All Rules." That's the first text on WP:SNOW. Closing AfD's once consensus has been thoroughly established is beneficial to the project; calling it detrimental is nonsensical. Anyone asserting that a SNOW closure is improper must assert in good faith and with a straight face that the consensus hadn't been thoroughly established. Assertions that simply "not following process" harm the project fly in the face of WP:BURO. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SNOW closures are bad if it is not the case that all interested parties have had a chance to participate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A chance to participate? To the extent that a SNOW close denies someone a chance to influence consensus, I agree, but the point of discussions is consensus-achievement. If consensus has clearly been achieved, then there is no further benefit to discussion; if consensus has not been achieved, then discussion should continue until it has been achieved. We don't set arbitrary minimum time frames in defiance of IAR, we do what's right for the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to say that I completely support SilkTork here. There seems to be plenty of commentary above to support such a change (although admittedly half of it is my own, so I'm hardly "uninvolved"). I particularly do not find the "SNOW is an IAR implementation" to be convincing. That may be, and indeed is true, but it doesn't really address the various arguments here.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize I'm coming in a little late to this discussion but figured I might throw in my own few cents. One thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is essentially a volunteer-run project; if someone is volunteering their time in the form of closing a few AfD discussions, it is unreasonable to expect them to be fastidious about checking timestamps to make sure exactly 7 days have passed. If we are talking about an early closure on the magnitude of a few hours, it's really no big deal and anyone who is willing to contest a closure on those grounds alone needs to have their head checked. It is a different story if we are speaking of closures more than, say, one day early. These cases would require some kind of special rationale for the early closure, as I don't buy the argument that someone was just surfing around AfD logs a day early and decided to close a few obvious cases. Discussions whose outcome is so painfully obvious that continued discussion would be a waste of time might reasonably be closed early, but I suspect this would happen within the first several hours of the discussion; I can't think of any good reason people should be closing things a day or two early. Shereth 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the closure of discussions a few hours early is hardly a problem. What I myself had noticed, and I think a few others noticed, is that there were some closures which were occurring days in advance (The 3-4 day mark seems to gather a lot of early closes, for whatever reason). I personally don't have an issue with most early closures where the nominator wishes to withdraw, which is something that I think we probably ought to be more sensitive towards (with the obvious caveat that nom withdrawal shouldn't affect a widespread discussion). What bugs me is the "there are X votes, all to [keep/delete]. SNOW closed as [keep/delete]." That doesn't happen too often, but I don't think it's helpful when it does happen. I guess that I just don't see any discussion here as being a "waste of time".
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why don't you think it's helpful? I've pointed out above how some editors have used AfD tags as political weapons against articles they don't like, vehemently insisting on "no early closure!" in the face of overwhelming demonstration of notability. That's certainly at least one downside to the "no SNOWing closes early!" viewpoint. I favor a full and thorough discussion until consensus has clearly been achieved--which doesn't just mean someone pulls ahead, but that the vast majority of editors making policy-based arguments have agreed to something--but after that point, what is the real benefit to encyclopedia-building? At best, there's a second order effect of some folks arguing against consensus feeling better about getting their say. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between that and SNOW closing discussions after two or three days. That's with SNOW closing frowned upon in general. Some of these are people who have been admins for years, and they need others to remind them not to do that? Yes, supporting the snowball clause may end unnecessarily long discussions, but it would likely result in discussions being closed after a couple of days just because, for instance the first five out of six people to comment on the discussion happen to say delete. SwarmTalk 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help me complete AfD

Tag added at Andrew_Lawton. Similar non-notable biography was deleted in 2006. Can a registered editor please complete the process for me? 67.193.129.239 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Please try to provide your rationale on the discussion itself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lawton (2nd nomination) soon or it may be closed as a speedy keep, as I have not provided a rationale myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Clinton Houses

Needs completion of step 2. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar to Template:AfD categories, I suggest a template that add links to notability guidelines in the AFD discussions based on the subject type. Sole Soul (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Try To

Needs completion of step 2. AfD rationale can be found on the article talk page. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done by DitzyNizzy ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Coinflipper

Needs to have step 2 completed. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done SMC (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Felecia Lindsey-Howse

Step 2, please. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done and article creator notified (though he has not edited for three years). JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

XFD noticeboard?

The recent requests above being posted here got me thinking. Should someone create an "XFD noticeboard" which we can direct IP users and editors who feel they are having XFD related issues to?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it would be better to direct them to the talk page of the XfD they want to create and use the {{editsemiprotected}} template, in this case. Hut 8.5 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, clearly that's what's being done here, but how is that better then using a centralized, purpose tasked page? There are at least 13 sections of comments directly above this one which are asking for help with AFD's, which really has little to do with discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion itself. What's more, considering the fact that you have to seek out and find this talk page to post those requests/questions, I'd be willing to bet that there is a 10:1 ratio of people who would make requests vs. people who actually do.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if my comment wasn't clear. I meant that if you want to nominate Example for deletion you make an edit request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Example. I believe unregistered users can create talk pages. Hut 8.5 10:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So who sees that talk page? --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If it's templated, whoever looks at the template transclusions. Otherwise, no one, most likely. I also note that WP:AFD currently suggests that IPs use the article's talk page, not the AfD's talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The template places the talk page into CAT:PER, which is reviewed by people with the necessary access to make the edit. Hut 8.5 18:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series

{{editsemiprotected}}

Complete article for deletion

Would a registered user please complete the AfD nomination for Anthony Chidiac?118.209.219.96 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pernicious argument: deleted articles can be returned in "only a few seconds"

Several times on WP I have seen admins in deletion discussions mention the fact that deleted articles can be restored in "only a few seconds" as a way of supporting the blind application of WP rules, as if deleting an article is no big deal. After all, an article can be un-deleted later and its original text restored. I find this argument a little offensive: once an article has been deleted, a non-admin user such as myself has no easy way to recover the article text, or even to discover if the article in question ever actually existed. My only attempt at requesting the text from an article I had created, which was later deleted, was met with silence. Not all users on WP are admins, so I'd appreciate it if some effort could be made to emphasize to admins how difficult article deletion is for an ordinary user. cojoco (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you contact WP:REFUND? Part of its job is to help users like you get access to deleted articles in a timely and efficient manner. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that link. although I'm not looking to undelete an article: all I wanted was a copy of the text in my sandbox for future reference (Is there any way to do that?) However, I think my complaint still stands: for a non-admin user, especially a new user, article deletion is a big deal, and I don't think that the fact that an admin can recover an article in a few seconds has any bearing on deletion discussions. For people who put a lot of work into an article, the deletion of that article makes their work quite difficult to recover, especially if they are not experienced. For example, one suggestion: If mechanisms exist to recover article text, then it might be nice to place a template on the talk page of contributors to an article telling them that the article has been deleted, and advising them how to recover their work. Unless the article was offensive or libelous, is there any harm with there being some automated way to recover its text? cojoco (talk)
(e/c} I think you misunderstood the point the user was making (or I have). I think they were saying they found seeing the argument deletion wasn't a big deal since the article could be undeleted as wearisome. To the, uhm, lowly peons, all that can be learnt from a deleted article is the summary left ("A7 you say? Well, I didn't know that about that historic figure" ;), with no way to tell if there was anything informative & encyclopedic worth making an undeletion request for so it can be looked at, let alone any way to look at the article or restore it there and then. Although their comment included a note on their own experience regarding an article they created, I read it as more general for the most part. Still a useful link to give them for the specific bit though. :) –Whitehorse1 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Letting non-administrators view deleted content has been discussed multiple times. I don't particularly have a problem with it (especially if we went ahead and oversighted inappropriate material more freely), but do what I can within the status quo to make the undeletion process as painless as possible for eligible articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not saying non-admins should be able to view deleted content. I thought the user—if indeed their assertion individual admins are saying that in discussions is accurate—made a valid point that being blasé about deleting something because it can be undeleted at the click of a mouse (at least, by them) is undesirable. –Whitehorse1 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to dob in specific admins, but it has happened several times, and once only a few days ago. However, I think my complaint has two parts: firstly, some admins are very blasé about deletion, despite the fact that it is makes it very difficult for non-admin editors to recover their work, but secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is currently nigh impossible for new editors to recover their hard work lost after it is deleted: WP:REFUND looks great, but, as with many WP things, it's only useful if you know about it. cojoco (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete article for deletion

Would a registered user please complete the AfD nomination for Sang Kyu Moon if they so see fit. Statement on the talk page. thanks, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GB, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Magno

The above AfD came up with a merge and redirect conclusion, but it never happened. I believe the history has to be kept in this situation, so could a friendly admin do the necessary please? (I'm happy to sort it out once merged). Quantpole (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Help request

Need help in adding nomination.

I put the AfD template on Princess Kaguya (cruise ship).

When I try to add a discussion the former nomination appears-- this article has been nominated and deleted twice before, both in 2008, and the second deletion was under the same name. (The first was under a different article name, Princess Kaguya (ship)). See second AfD discussion. My attempts to create an entry now simply results in the 2008 discussion reappearing, and that is the dicussion which links from the AfD notice on the article. I have removed that notice pending figuring out how to nominate a formerly-deleted article which has been recreated under the same name.

Any guidance will be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sproull

Could someone please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sproull and close it, if appropriate? I am a participant in the discussion, so I shouldn't. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Avoid AFD

Seems to be a growing number of editors avoid AFD, the article is just replaced with a redirect to some other relevant article. Is there any guidance on such a practice? SunCreator (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, on this very page (not the talk): WP:BEFORE #4: "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." Fram (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It can be a sneaky way to get rid of an article, but it is also sometimes fine to do. If you disagree with the article becoming a redirect, talk with the editor or just boldly revert. Fences&Windows 00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This will be partially solved by putting merge into afd, as was proposed on the talk AFD talk page. Editors are still encouraged to boldly revert and merge, but the discussion, if there is argument, will be in a centralized place. Ikip 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Should I nominate this

I came across this Iron Maiden (blues rock band) a band that operated for about a 6 years (under differnet names) and did not release an album untill 30 years after they folded (thier debute album?) but did realse one single. It appears to be unsourced (there is a list of referances, but these are not linked to the text).Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've listed it, but others might like to check it as I have never done it before and am bound to have SNAFU'd somewhere. Your twice as notable as they are then.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers I'll see to that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete nomination - Turn It Up! (Music TV)

Would a registered user please complete the nomination process for Turn It Up! (Music TV)? 118.209.200.81 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Listing previous AFDs in new Debate

I notice that there are frequently new Debates that are obviously not the first nomination, either because the article has history at another title, or because the afd template didn't insert a list of previous AFDs, or what have you. Since it seemed simple enough, I put together a new template to insert that list - {{oldafdlist}}. FYI, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A move

Please see WT:Deletion today. Simply south (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE #7

"If there is no [talk page] discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors" was added to WP:BEFORE #7 on July 9th. I was wondering what the rationale for that was (it seems excessive to me, as talk page discussions on rarely-viewed articles are unlikely to attract any interested editors), so I had a look at this talk page around July and I can't find any discussion for it - was there one (maybe somewhere else)? Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While I think such may be a good idea in some cases, I share your concerns. Certainly, such conversation-initiation is overkill for PRODs or CSD's. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
If the article being edited fairly frequently this could well be a good idea. However the vast majority of AfDed articles are obscure and probably unwatched and this would be a waste of time. Hut 8.5 18:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has over 3 million articles but only one AFD process. This AFD process is already overloaded - there is little participation and so numerous discussions are carried forward for lack of contributions. Discussion should always be tried first at the article because this is a scalable process which will not overload so easily. If it seems that the article is neglected then start a discussion page by adding a project template. This should attract attention from one of numerous projects who have an interest in the topic. If they like the look of the topic then they can pick it up and work on it. If they don't like the look of it then they can nominate it for deletion. There's no rush to get it to AFD right away because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I can’t say I’m having much joy with my attempts to initiate talk page discussions – Talk:Evolution of schizophrenia, Talk:Fastest recorded tennis serves (not that I’m planning on nominating these for deletion, this is just what I’m basing my observations on), and they’ve got project templates for active Wikiprojects. Surely an article which attracts little comment at AFD is even less likely to attract comment on it's talk page.
What do you base the suggestions that AFD is overloaded and has little participation on? Flicking through yesterday’s noms there are only about 5 that haven’t attracted any comments yet. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Cassandra 73. This shouldn't be part of WP:BEFORE. Whilst nominating an article isn't supposed to be 'easy', neither should it be like a load of hoops to jump through. Quantpole (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed this part of #7 again, and toned down #3,as both were things to consider, but not things you are obliged to do before an AfD. Fram (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • AFD is overloaded because many or most of the discussions get negligible attention unless they are a hot-button issue. See WP:Articles for deletion/Limbo (Brathwaite poem), for example - a bundle of 14 articles up for deletion. This has been relisted twice and still isn't getting much attention. The poems in question are set-pieces being studied by millions of children in school and so you would think that there's obvious educational merit to these topics but so it goes. Editors only come in significant numbers to political footballs like WP:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination). It's sad. What we need is more local discussion and less drive-bys. If it takes time for discussion and consensus to accumulate at an article, that's fine because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. The 7 days of AFD clearly isn't enough for most topics and relisting isn't working. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
We need to avoid being over-prescriptive. We shouldn't have what look like 'rules' that could be used to block clearly appropriate AfDs. Sure, the poems are not a problem, but there are times when there is clearly no reason to wait for more or perhaps any discussion on the talk page. And it isn't quite true that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, it's one of those cliches that sound nice and are indeed correct at times, but sometimes are simply wrong. I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree with your revert, Fram's initial wording of a suggestion was definitely more appropriate. –SpacemanSpiff 08:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Colonel on this one, if editors would simply talk over their concerns first, a lot of contention would be avoided. It was added here I would think talking through issues with an article first would be a no-brainer and not controversial at all. Ikip 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Which is fine on articles where you know there is going to be discussion. Projects vary from moribund to over-stretched, that's no way to get dicussion. It's a good thing to do where appropriate, but it isn't always appropriate and shouldn't be made mandatory. In fact, going to AfD can be a way of getting discussion, particularly since we now have the Article Rescue Squadron. This looks as though it was meant to be something that could be used to veto an AfD - have I misunderstood that? Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The Rescue Squadron takes the time to click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and often finds there are plenty of valid newspaper references and books mentioning something to meet the suggested notability guidelines. AFD is not a vote. Things are less likely to be deleted when you have more people noticing and participating though. Dream Focus 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion on the article talk page is a good idea however it will only be noticed by those watching the article. An AfD brings a wider audience. AfDs should not be vetoed on a technicality; let's have the discussion with as many participants as possible.   pablohablo. 18:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well put Pablo. I've put things on a talk page, asking about making a change to something in an article and had it go for months without response, while the article continues to be actively edited. This will most likely just delay the AfD process, nothing more. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no limit to how many AFD someone can make each day, every single day of their life. Even if the nominator has previously had hundreds of their nominations end in Keep, they can still keep going. It's shameful. We need people to discuss things on the talk page, and get some input, before rampaging about wasting everyone's time with pointless AFD that could've easily been avoided, sometimes by just spending a few seconds with Google news search. Dream Focus 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There is similarly no limit to how many times people can shamelessly !vote 'Keep' per any number of bogus rationales such as "I reject the idea of notability', 'no reason to redlink in the paperless encyclopedia', or 'gets lots of Google hits'.
We already have discussions on talk pages. We also have discussions at AfD. What's your point?   pablohablo. 19:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I nominated a musician. He was covered, once, in the NY Times in an article about how he hasn't gotten a hit or "made it" in any way. That was it. The sole coverage of this guy. Basically an article telling us why he isn't notable. But a band of editors fought it based on GNG and it was kept. I'm not ashamed of that nomination and I still think that GNG was being misused. So one writer decided he was interested in the guy....it is WP:ILIKEIT one step removed. Why would that "count against me"? The whole purpose of the discussion is to decide if the nom is right or not.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of those who nominated hundreds of articles a month, and have a considerable percentage end in keep. These should be looked into by someone, to see if maybe they are wasting our time, and need to be limited to how much they can do. Dream Focus 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
How many editors are you talking about here, and what are the percentages?   pablohablo. 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php hasn't worked in some time now, the author taking it down with a message at http://toolserver.org/~sql/ about some of his tools being abused somehow. How about we say, if 40% of your AFD nominations end in Keep, or at least 70% end in Keep or No consensus, you are restricted from nominating things for awhile. The exact numbers don't matter. We need to find a working tool, which shows how many AFD someone has started, and the results of them. Dream Focus 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be completely unwieldy and unworkable. Should we also then ban anyone from commenting in an AfD if the result runs contrary to their !vote in 40% of cases? That would be just as ridiculous.   pablohablo. 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If one of the cries I hear so often is "we're not wasting paper" is ok, then how are we "wasting time"? To be perfectly blunt, it looks to me like AfD nominations end up in more crappy articles being improved than good ones being deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed... and as you know, I am quite guilty myself of improving crappy articles that were sent to AFD that then were "kept". But a point to be considered is that AFD is not intended to be used as a tool to force cleanup, nor should it be used as a bludgeon to make the improving an article to be someone else's problem. Improving articles and thus the project is (supposedly) for ALL of us. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Likewise, despite my "deletionist" tendencies, once in a while I take it upon myself to rescue an article too. (And I have the first little egg awarded from the incubator). But I improved them because I wanted to, not because I was forced to. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Everyone, please add examples of AFD which ended in Keep, after someone took the time to use Google news search. I'll get it started. [1] [2] [3] [4] I have honestly had days where every single AFD I went to, could've ended quickly just by someone bothering to do a quick Google news search. Some of these have drive-by deletionists appearing to say "delete", without bothering to search for information to determine if the article is notable or not. Only if someone notices who is willing to actually take a few moments of their time to look into something, will the article be saved. That is why we need a rule that before someone nominate something, they should be required to take some time to look for sources themselves. Remember, there are hundreds of thousands of articles without any sources in them, most made before that guideline came into existence. Dream Focus 20:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, what relevance does this have to the discussion? I see no reason why the fact that some AfD nominations are shot down in flames means people should ask on the talk page before nominating articles for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Nor I.   pablohablo. 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It concerns BEFORE. If people bothered to discuss things on the talk page, this wouldn't happen. Also we need to add something to BEFORE to specifically require people to check Google news archives, before nominating something. Save us all some time. Dream Focus 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This thread isn't about BEFORE in general, I suggest you start another one if you want to discuss that.
I really don't think posting on the talk page would have made any difference in the AfDs you linked to earlier. Only one of the articles even had a talk page with anything other than bot notices on it at the time of nomination. The vast, vast majority of AfDed articles are obscure and are unlikely to have anyone watching them. And even if this wasn't the case, does it really make any difference if somebody links to a load of sourced on an AfD instead of on a talk page? Hut 8.5 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If the article meets the standards, it will be kept regardless of any talk page discussion. If it doesn't, it will be deleted, regardless of any talk page discussion. What is the big demand for delaying it waiting for a discussion that will a) never take place or b) be rehashed anyway if it does go to AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • But we're talking about articles that an editor might think does not (at the time) meet standards, but who themselves do not take the time to look toward its WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. I don't see a reasonable expectation that someone to be diligent as a demand to delay anything... only a common sense expectation that editors accept that improving problematic articles by expansion and sourcing improves the project as a whole. Discussions on a talk page could lead to resolution of concerns and improvement of an article without unnecessarily over-burdening the AFD process... and that an article might then go to AFD only if not resolved. And I speak here as someone who has learned well that proper before might have prevented some of these 205 articles and many many others I never saw from having ever been brought to AFD in the first place. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I clicked some random examples on that list, and it looks like they were rescued mainly because sources were found. I completely agree with WP:BEFORE #9 (making a good-faith attempt to find sources), but it only needs one person to do this so that doesn’t require a talk page discussion. Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And so then which "one person" would that be??? I have found that those that prejudge a topic as non notable are quite rarely, if ever, the ones who end up finding sources or improving an article they have already presumed as unsalvageable. At the very very minimum and at the very very least, to list their concerns on the article's talk page and to then ensure others are aware of their concerns by tagging the article for such (if not already tagged), shows courtesy toward the rest of Wikipedia and most specially toward those others who might be able to improve an article. Isn't community input what we're all here for? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • However, when an article has been taged for no references (or notability) for a year (or more), plenty of people have had plenty of time to fix that issue. It has sat there a year, not meeting that criteria but we want to extend that another week or so and place the onus of doing what the authoring editor should have done now on the person who finally is taking some kind of initiative. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Old tags are a problem, yes... and you made some great suggestions for it over at the Ikip page. But with respects, I am more concerned herein with THIS edit... one that could encourage editors to hide problems of which they are aware, thus preventing any others whom the tag might otherwise alert from even knowing of the issue. And yes, there are tags that have been long ignored... but there have been more that resulted in improvements. I am neutral about any requirements to create a discussion where one may not exist. Oh, I do believe it is an admirable courtesy, but if no one wants to discuss, no one will discuss. HOWEVER, I am not neutral about encouraging recognized and taggable problems to remain untagged and hidden. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In looking at Fram's edit of January 29, I can see that as well-meaning as it might have been, his change introduces contradiction. In a paragraph that concludes "... this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it", it is reasonable and prudent to retain the "tag it if not already tagged" caveat. Fram's wish to allow an editor to "consider" allowing an untagged problem to remain hidden does not improve the project nor alert others to concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A sample talk page dialogue then (I have seen some similar to this, but paraphrase)

Editor 1 I don't think this article meets the guidelines because (reason a, reason b)
Editor 2 I disagree; (reason x, reason y)

<Editors 1 and 2 may go back and forth for a while, nobody else comments, tumbleweed blows around, nothing else happens for a while. Editor 1 then proposes deletion of article, proper discussion ensues, article is improved/kept/merged/deleted, encyclopaedia benefits.>

On largely unwatched articles a talkpage discussion will attract minimal comment.

I don't think that it is feasible to require talk page discussion before a deletion discussion. I don't think that it's possible to make wp:before mandatory either, not in a volunteer project like this.   pablohablo. 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds like a quote from almost any AFD discussion as well. We've all (or most) been there. And it sad when any discussion devolves into an "it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, it isn't" debate. While I can agree that it is impossible to validate that anyone might have performed diligent BEFORE... that is no reason to make it easier to ignore. If an article has surmountable issues, and an editor skimming by nominates it for deletion without even determining if the issues are surmountable, it wastes everyone's time. If an editor does not even the most cursory search that might have revealed an article's potential, should I be grateful that they were too lazy?
It might have been tagged so that others might have attended to it and so prevented an AFD. Should we now condone or encourage editors being able to hide problems of which they are aware? "Consider tagging"? Heck, if an editor is aware of a problem it would seem his community duty to tag it for attention... to ENSURE readers are aware of the problem so that others may act to remedy it, even when the tagger himself will not.
Sadly, there is no onus attached to continued ignoring of WP:IMPROVE and WP:ATD... and no onus attached to making more work for others through a personal laziness. Just as are IMPROVE and ATD, BEFORE is already a far too often ignored guideline. But please, its being ignored is no reason to now dilute its wise instruction or to relegate it to essay or historical. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I was suggesting when I started this thread, I was questioning one particular addition made six months ago with apparently no discussion on this talk page beforehand. WP:BEFORE is a good guideline but there's been a bit of instruction creep. It's more likely to be followed if it is kept to realistic measures that have consensus. Cassandra 73 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, don't let this die just because a couple of reverts happened, folks. It should be possible to appease everyone's concerns as long as we're all able to communicate clear reasons for changes.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

misleading information

The section which currently reads

It also links to the lists of current debates, and two faster alternatives to AfD: the simpler companion processes, Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, exist for uncontroversial deletions, such as vandalism and patent nonsense.

is a tad misleading, it implies that proposed deletion and speedy deletion are equivalent. The two examples mentioned fall into speedy categories, and prod is not a 'faster alternative' to AfD.

I suggest

It also links to the lists of current debates, and two companion processes to AfD: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion has a clearly-defined set of criteria such as such as vandalism and patent nonsense. whereas Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is used to suggest deletions that no editor would contest.

  pablohablo. 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Absent any objection (or support!) I have made this change.   pablohablo. 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed discussions should note reviews

When a discussion has been closed and someone requests a deletion review I think the AfD page should be amended with a link to the review, __meco (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, as long as it isn't mandatory. "You should" instead of "you must".
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The relevant template is {{Delrevafd}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Meco. No need for "should".
When a discussion has been closed and someone requests a deletion review, please amended the AfD page with a link to the review.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, the problem is that many DRVs are initiated by newbies that aren't yet savvy enough to know to add it. I try to make a point of making sure that all new reviews are tagged but I'm sure I miss some. J04n(talk page) 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When participating at DRV, the first thing I do is open the XfD. I suppose it would be very easy for me to add the template. No need at all to harass the newbie. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Since comparatively few people will initiate DRVs than XfDs, and since the former will involve an admin more or less from the get-go, it would be easy to add the requested routine to the chores of the admin in charge of the DRV. I'm not quite sure how the process goes, but would this be in line with how things work? __meco (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Cunard is slowly working their way through the old DRV logs and adding the links. Its all under control - even if it does mean that long dead discussions keep appearing on my watchlist... Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: when !voting merge, add a notice at the proposed target

I was reading the discussion above called #How effective is the merge decision?, and figured that I could make myself useful by merging Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments to Australia-Canada relations, which had been pointed out as a merge decision that had been sitting around unperformed. But the merge is going to be tough. As I've said at Talk:Australia-Canada relations, a comparison between the countries "has pretty much no bearing whatsoever on Australia-Canada relations. You could write 'Comparison of Glenfarclas and Megan Fox,' but sadly it would have very little to do with 'Glenfarclas–Megan Fox relations'; the same fundamental problem applies here." I'm sure a ton of the material will wind up getting chopped.

But it got me to thinking about a broader point. If I were a regular editor of Australia-Canada relations, I wouldn't want to see a bunch of unrelated material shoehorned into it, and if I complained that it wasn't on topic, I wouldn't want to be told, "Well, the consensus was to merge them. Sorry you didn't hear." If I have Australia-Canada relations on my watchlist but don't religiously follow AfDs, the first I'd learn about the issue at all would be when the merge was carried out. That doesn't seem right. Under the ordinary merge process, editors of the proposed target are notified that a merge has been suggested, and if they think the material doesn't belong they have a chance to speak up and say so.

So I'm floating this tentative proposal for comment. When Foo is at AfD and an editor suggests merging it to Bar, he should, under ordinary circumstances, at the same time place a notice on Bar about it. This would probably require a new template, which would read something like:

  The article Foo has been nominated for deletion, but another editor has suggested that it be merged into this page or section instead. (Discuss)

A direction to use this template when suggesting a merge would be added as appropriate, probably at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD and/or wherever others think would be wise.

This proposal seems to me to have the benefits of (1) alerting editors of a page that may be significantly altered as the result of a proposal, (2) not altering or delaying the AfD process in any significant way, (3) potentially drawing editors to the AfD who have a particular expertise or involvement in the subject matter of the article that's up for deletion, and (4) potentially getting editors involved (and invested) at an earlier stage who may later be willing to carry out the merge if that's the final decision.

The only drawback I can think of at first blush it that it might result in an AfD discussion getting too far off topic if a lot of the comments are about what/whether/how to merge, rather than the fundamental issue of whether Foo should be deleted. If this issue seems like a problem, we might instead want to direct that comments concerning the suggested merge rather than the suggested deletion be left on the talk page of the AfD (which is almost never used for anything).

Thoughts or comments? This isn't a formal proposal. All the best—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, it will add a bit of chaos to the AfD but I think that is offset by the advantage of bringing in editors that are more expert in the subject. I recently performed one of these merges just to have it reverted a few hours later. J04n(talk page) 10:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is a good idea as well. People shouldn't be bashing others over the head for not doing it or anything, but some additional notifications to related articles would certainly be helpful.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I support this. It has been suggested in previous discussions, but only in passing, and without attracting significant comment. {{Mergefrom}} will work by specifying its discuss parameter, but a more urgent message to solicit comments within the limited AfD period is desirable. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it would be better to use a template that didn't default to linking the target page's talk, and that indicated that the underlying issue is deletion. Your point about the limited time period is well taken too.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Harpreet Singh Giani

I'm wondering whether to nominate this article under AfD or CSD A7, not sure whether or not it fails notability guidelines. -ZhongHan (Email) 14:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A7 I think - I don't believe that "former intern of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court" is a sufficient claim of notability.   pablohablo. 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're saying "I'm not sure", and Pablo above qualifies with "I think"... then list it on AFD. CSD is supposed to be for things that you know should be deleted, which this may be, but...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Good advice. Having waited a while to see if the creator added anything, and searched for some information myself, I now know that it's an A7.   pablohablo. 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD discussion gone blooey

I'm looking for suggestions on how to reign in this mess? Any aid would be much appreciated. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose you will have to await the time period to expire. The nomination was clearly malicious, but I don't believe that is a reason to close it as many have expressed an opinion in both directions. When closing look for the arguments based on policy. It it ever was notable it is still notable now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Secret Weapon (Working Title)

Needs step 2 completed. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for Blocks to Robots. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of these requests, as they are clearly permitted by policy. There is no reason why non-registered users cannot AfD an article, and they followed the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO to the letter. Given that one of the article underwent a substantial change, and the other is currently being CSD'd, I'll wait for confirmation before acting on this request. Tim Song (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done for Blocks to Robots. The other was deleted already. Tim Song (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM still popping up as "open"

Not a big deal of course, but it's been closed since January 24th yet still comes up as being open, and I think that's because the AfD was so ginormous it breaks the page or something (don't ask me what I mean by "break the page"—I have no idea really). I seem to recall that this was the case with some other overlong AfD once and then some smart person came in and fixed it somehow. I am not that smart person, but this is a call for that smart to do whatever it is smart people do when an extremely long, now closed AfD won't take leave of the "old discussions" list as it ought. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I am no expert here, I tried a fix where I simply manually removed it from the old log, then ran mathbot again, and it didn't pop back up because mathbot doesn't look that far back into the past. No idea if this will actually stop it happening in the long run, but its vanished for now... I just hope nothing breaks, I am always scared of solutions which seem too easy! --Taelus (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Malicious attack

L.O.V.E (album)

Step 2 needs completion. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Should this be nominated?

Light in school buildings appears to me to be a vehicle in an extensive campaign to get the product Daysimeter advertised in Wikipedia. Sections have been added to several articles (and reverted). We have an article Lighting in libraries. This could develop into quite a series: lighting in hospitals, etc., etc.

I've never been involved in any deletion process. What say you? - Hordaland (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I should have replied here, though I'm sure you've noticed since you've edited the article since, that I just cut all the text dealing with Daysimeter. I highly doubt the topic of light in school buildings needs a standalone article, but I'm undecided about whether I myself am going to AfD it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. We have several related articles which need to be reworked. Light effects on circadian rhythm largely duplicates Circadian rhythm and Entrainment. I think an article on, perhaps, Lighting in buildings could/should cover both daylight and artificial lighting indoors for all sorts of buildings. Maybe even just Lighting indoors. A project for another day. - Hordaland (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice

Hi all, just wanted to let you know I created a group notice for all the subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). I hope this is okay, and feel free to modify it. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also see the relative discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably necessary, but it's probably the sort of thing we should have discussed beforehand. But I don't have an alternative to propose - as noted, a collapsible box probably wouldn't be read by the very people who need to read it most. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion

Ongoing Discussion on implementing the move from Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion is occurring. Further input there would be appreciated.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

So yesterday I performed a couple of relistings and an uncontroversial no consensus non-admin closure. I'm then told by User:Themfromspace that "there is a pretty strong consensus against non-admins performing administrative actions in AfDs, such as closing noncontentious debates or deciding to relist them."

Not that I did anything I haven't seen other non-admins do, nor did I violate any policy, but when I responded to ask for clarification, I didn't get a reply. So my question is, if such a consensus exists, can someone point me to it? I don't see what the problem with a proper non-admin closure is. Swarm(Talk) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You have already seen Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Closing a debate as "no consensus" is not a normal NAC. I'm also not sure about your relisting. This Afd already had plenty of participation. IfSince you had already taken the time to read the discussion so as to determined that a clear consensus was not apparent, it would be much more helpful for you to !vote your best reading of whatever consensus can be gleaned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your frequent lack of edit summary is a general problem, and when closing a discussion without reference in the edit summary, it is a real problem. Please do not close discussions with the default edit summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure WP:NAC doesn't even mention "no consensus" closures, so I'm not sure what the problem with an uncontroversial one is. Either way, your failure to read what I actually wrote and answer the one question that I had seems to be a problem with you. I didn't ask for an editor review and I sure as hell don't want one from you. Any action I make here is, automatically, open to admin review and, if need be, reversal, and any personal concerns, such as edit summary usage can be brought to my talk page. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to take any action on a deletion discussion before thoroughly reading through it and considering each point? Apparently you do, based on your incredibly helpfulS advice to read the arguments and !vote accordingly. I don't know you, and I don't appreciate my question being completely ignored in favor of lambasting me for my contributions. Swarm(Talk) 08:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Swarm, I think you may have misunderstood SmokeyJoe on one point. I believe the meaning of his comment about the Dustin Berg AfD would be better understood if you replace "If you had already taken the time" with "Since you had already taken the time". I believe his point was that no-consensus discussions with significant participation need not be relisted; so, once you had taken the time to review the discussion and found no consensus, it would have been better to weigh in yourself.
Your reaction is not unnatural in the context of an accusation that you relisted the discussion without reading it, but I don't believe that was SmokeyJoe's suggestion. Instead, I believe this to be a misunderstanding caused by the inability of a conversation via text to properly convey tone and body language. Your actions in working to clear part of the existing backlog certainly suggest good faith on your part, and I don't believe that SmokeyJoe would be cavalier in accusing anyone of closing a discussion without fully reading it (based on my previous interactions with him, mostly at WP:MFD and WP:CFD). –Black Falcon (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:NACD states that "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator", and I believe that no consensus closes fall under that provision. I was not able to find any restrictions regarding non-admin relistings of AfD discussions when they are performed correctly. Per WP:RELIST, "relisting should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure" when there has been significant participation; debates as long as this one and this one, which had been relisted once before, probably should not have been relisted (that being said, I see no point in reversing the relisting, since a relisted discussion can be closed at any time, without having to wait another full 7 days).
My suggestion would be to avoid closing discussions as "no consensus" and relisting only per WP:RELIST (i.e., if there is insufficient participation in order to determine consensus or new, significant information came to light near the end of the debate and other editors have not had a chance to consider it). The edit summary usage issue raised by SmokeyJoe is valid, albeit tangential; a simple "closed", "closed discussion", or "non-admin close" ought to be more than sufficient. –Black Falcon (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe I am not alone in strongly preferring the closing edit summary to indicate how it was closed (eg "Kept/withdrawn"). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection, I would be surprised if you were (alone in that preference, that is), so the "more than" in my comment is definitely unfounded. I suppose I was projecting my own feelings on the matter. –Black Falcon (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Black Falcon, for your helpful insight and advice. I was under the impression that there would be no problem with what I feel is obviously an uncontroversial no consensus close, but apparently that's what the policy refers to by "close calls". Perhaps the relevant pages should be updated to clarify that. Anyway, I appreciate the advice. Also, you may be right that what I interpreted as disparaging remarks by SmokeyJoe was nothing more than an unintended tone I took from their comments. In any case, I responded uncivilly, and I apologize for that. Swarm(Talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, Swarm was doing a great thing here, and it's something that I wish more people would step up and do themselves (once they have a decent feel of the process, anyway). The problem is that there are many admins who see this as their backyard, so they seem to see anyone who comes here without the bit (and even several with it) and makes any sort of descision as people "pissing on their backyard". It's a shame, but that's an attitude which has unfortunately become well ingrained here, and personally I'd rather concentrate on actual content. I'm perfectly willing to give you (and anyone else, for that matter) moral support, though.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I regret the unintended offense. It is true that I didn't answer Swarm's question. Whether a non-admin should close an obvious "no consensus" discussion is a difficult question that I chose to ignore. If it is "obvious", then I see little reason to object. Complicating the question is the fact that at DRV we often see widely different opinions among admins on what is a "no consensus" compared to the admin purview of declaring a rough consensus. I went off on the edit summary tangent because in reviewing Swarms Wikipedia-space contributions, I found that lack of edit summaries made reviewing them so much more difficult. That said, I didn't find terrible problems, and commented on the worst thing I found (some arguably over eager relists). As per Ohms Law, I would encourage Swarm to keep on helping out at AfD, and point out that if he gets good at it he'll get a lot respect from the community for doing so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Regarding my edit summary usage, I am simply not in the habit of doing so in the WP namespace, due to the fact that I'm usually just contributing to a discussion and not making an "edit" per se. However, I certainly should get in the habit of doing so when performing actions such as closures, and I will be much more mindful in the future. Swarm(Talk) 04:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No consensus closes are not listed under WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. There are (or were, I haven't checked recently) a few experienced non-admins patrolling, relisting, and closing AfDs. Not all of their closes have been 100% unambiguous, but those users had developed nuanced judgment of appropriate closes. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I occasionally close as no consensus, but never substantively. Most of time it's when there's insufficient participation after multiple relistings or when some overriding procedural problem separate from the merits made it impossible to determine the consensus safely. I agree that a "typical" no consensus close, where both sides have fairly developed arguments, is inappropriate for NAC, as they are almost by definition not non-controversial. Tim Song (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask you this in reply though: What makes the closure by an administrator necessary for such closures? Do you need to use the tools to close a discussion as "no consensus", for some reason (setting aside the legitimate criticisms of the reason itself for a moment)? It may not be intentional here, but you're implicetly stating that the judgement of an administrator is somehow special. Personally, based on my (thankfully) limited interactions with admins, I not only dispute that but I'd say that the exact opposite is often true...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The theory is that tricky closures are the domain of administrators because administrators have been positively assessed on their ability to read consensus, as part of their RFA. In practice, there will be exceptions. Some administrators seem unaware of their own biases. Tim Song, on the other hand, clearly knows what he is doing around AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, I understand the theory, but in practice it's a fairly poor standard to go by. The most obvious criticism is that RFA is not actually about deletion, let alone AFD closures. I do agree that Tim happens to generally keep his head screwed on straight here, from what I've seen, but that's not at all universal. If there is consensus that AFD closures should be handled by a privileged class of users then we should actually do that. Personally, I'm somewhat supportive of that sort of idea, and I think that the controlling policy is already pretty much there (which is why this discussion is occurring at all), but copping out by saying that "admins should do this" is not the best way to implement that sort of process. Banging on people who step forward to volunteer their time to this process, simply because they don't meet some arbitrary guideline that doesn't even really have consensus to be meet, is certainly not what we should be doing here, regardless.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
By "arbitrary guideline", do you mean WP:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, WP:Non-admin closure, or something else? Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sort of, yes. I tend to think of the front of this document myself, but the content dealing with this issue is from WP:NAC so... *shrug*. The thing is, the only real reason that an admin is needed at all is for implementing an actual deletion, if that is the decision, which is why I think that NAC is an arbitrary guideline. We've moved a long ways form "the mop" being "no big deal", and this gets into one of the big reasons why that is true. Processes such as WP:RM work perfectly well without requiring admins to close (although, that's changed somewhat in the last year or so as well).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

You know, I was just thinking... now, keep in mind that this is just a somewhat random, and completely undeveloped thought that I had, so please do go jumping down my throat about it. I was just thinking, there ought to be a way to sort of "review" all closures here. I'm not talking about DRV, except obviously that if such reviews were decidedly against the decision then obviously DRV would be the way to go, but... I mean, just some mechanism to discuss things, even if just to say "I support this as well" or some such thing like that. I imagine such a system could certainly help with the more innocuous questions ("what do you mean by that exactly?", or perhaps more topical for this discussion, something like "Why didn't you use an edit summary?") without going all the way to DRV. In most things in life, simply being able to ask or answer those little questions tends to go a long way toward building trust among people as well, usually.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Note to closing administrator"

I do not close these AFDs as often as I used to, but I would like to register my opposition to comments where "Note to closing administrator" appears, along with a argument why the opposing viewpoint is wrong and should be ignored. Such notes have a number of bad things about them:

  • Everything posted on an AFD is a "note to closing administrator". We really do read the comments and arguments presented. There is no need to highlight your note as one exclusively to the closing admin.
  • Such notes are often used in an intimidatory fashion, a way of saying "Your arguments are worthless, and I am going to remind whoever closes this debate to ignore your arguments!" This does not make for a calm, pleasant environment for debate.
  • In many cases the content in the note to the closing admin is incorrect, misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. Those notes are just annoying, and this closing admin doesn't want to see them.

By all means, point it out if you find an argument flawed, or if you have made improvements to the article, but don't highlight it with the self-important "note to closing admin" header. (Oh, while we're at it, try to formulate the flaws in the opposing argument with your own words instead of making abbreviated references to the WP:ATA page which is an essay, not policy, written to help you make better arguments, not as a means to attack the arguments of everyone else.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree. It effectively is making a comment with an insistence that no one respond to it. There is also a sense of a variation of appeal to authority. Disagree that "Everything posted on an AFD is a "note to closing administrator"". Sometimes participants do talk to, and debate with, each other, and truly engage in a the nebulous consensus building exercise. Not often, but sometimes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fresh examples of this may be seen at WP:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies. In this case, it seems due to the debate becoming overheated along with edit-warring and contention over the article. The atmosphere in that one seems poisonously uncivil and the level of disruption is such that I have walked away from it for now, as being unproductive. This is not unusual at AFD but the question is what to do about it as exhortations of the usual sort are not taken seriously. Matters might be improved if the closing admin were appointed at the start of the discussion, rather than at the end. The admin could then act as a chairman, keep good order and direct the participants in useful ways regarding findings of fact and lines of argument to follow. It's hard to know which AFDs might require this level of attention though - I was quite surprised that this one blew up in the way that it has. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with original poster.
  1. The appeal to authority seems like bad Etiquette. When I was new and first saw this in an AFD I was surprised at such behaviour. It seemed (and still does) so unprofessional.
  2. It is also unprofessional in the sense that the wording directly conflicts with general practice of Non-admin closure.
  3. It does seem to work, so I can understand why some editors use it even if they are aware of the unprofessional issues.
  4. Editors with vested interest and scant regard to policies or guidelines will continue to use things that work.
  5. One could create a policy against it, but policies are ignoresd and with no enforcement it would be meaningless anyhow.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything can be abused. I do make these notes sometimes: usually to point out things like redirects pointing to the article being discussed for deletion, intervening renames that mean an article by a different name than the one being discussed is now the appropriate one to hit the delete button for, or that some process glitch occurred (such as the AFD template having been removed from the target article for a substantial period). If you would like them formatted with a different header, feel free to make suggestions.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Notes like that, on technical issues, are OK, and it was not those I meant to target. :-) I think dead redirects are generally cleared by a bot if the deleting administrator forgets to remove them along with the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Many scripts already handle incoming redirects quite well. Handling pages moved during the discussion, though, is a pain. Agree that those notes on substantive issues are inappropriate. They should be reserved for procedural issues (sock blocks, not listed on log, AfD tag not added, etc.). Tim Song (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I favor them. They're often a great way to summarize arguments, especially in an AfD that ranges into TL;DR space. In AfDs that aren't full of text, contested, and close on nose-counting, though, I don't see the point in writing one. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about favoring them, but I certainly don't see a significant problem. It's easy enough to simply ignore things that aren't really relevant or useful in making a decision.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles needing step 2 completion

Prods contested by an editor who is removing prods from articles I've edited.

  1. St. Clair Middle School 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Sucker-trap 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Mister Latin America 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

More... October 26 1993. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hut 8.5 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one...

And more...

Use of symbols

An editor is insisting on using the and similar symbols. I seem to remember we had some previous discussions about not doing so. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, consensus is that they're discouraged, not forbidden. If he really, really wants to use them, we can't stop him. Still, we should explain why we don't like editors using them. What's the user's name? lifebaka++ 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I remember some discussion about it but I don't know if it was here.   pablohablo. 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I found some of the discussion: A group of similar templates were in fact deleted at TfD a year ago, along with links to earlier discussions where the same result was obtained. The consensus there seems to be they should never be used, but it would be impossible to remove all possible check mark images! The user is Ipatrol, and the reason he gave me when asked is " I use these pictures in my votes to make them stand out a bit." -- exactly the reason we should prohibit it entirely. I have notified him of this discussion DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
A similar discussion is here under the section "Template {{Afdrescued}}".   pablohablo. 21:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it's a personal choice, like deciding on which end to crack a hard-boiled egg. People can use garish signatures to stand out, yet they are perfectly acceptable. ATM there is no consensus on their prohibition, though I am aware they are discouraged for user-end performance. I don't think this is really something to worry about when thousands of important articles are languishing under C class; as it is you interrupted me from NPP. So, please, let me do as I do.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I see little functional difference between such symbols and bold-faced words such as Keep and Delete which are similarly used as emphatic summaries. The main issue with a tick symbol is that its meaning is ambiguous - like saying Yes or OK. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I see really substantial symbolic differences: we are not in a contest, but a discussion. The turning of it into a competition hampers the proper discussion of the problem articles. We all have an equal voice, and should not be using rhetorical typographic devices to call attention to ourselves. , but only for clarity. I made a simple request to follow the usual conventions, and it is your refusal, ipatrol, that expanded it. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This comes up regularly, with the consensus always seeming to be against the use of these icons:[5][6][7][8][9]. Repeating the same discussion every few months is a waste of everyone's time, so, to avoid that, I would recommend putting clear wording in the policy forbidding the use of the icons. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible nonsense article

Could somebody take a look at the article Kinky hose? Looks like a joke to me, and it appears to fail the Google test, but I'm reluctant to AfD an article on a subject I know nothing about. Furthermore, the article creator has another article (Nape braid) which looks more legit but cites identical sources. Dooky (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I speedily deleted Kinky hose as a blatant hoax. Nape braid has been prodded. The sources appear to be fakes. Fences&Windows 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? I read Kinky hose last night and it didn't seem to be a hoax to me... I didn't actually look at the ref in Nape braid though. I'll go take a look, now. If this is a hoax/vandalism, then it's pretty subtle.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Then the proper thing is for Kinky hose to be undeleted as a contested CSD ("not blatant or obvious"), and for it to be sent to AfD. If a case is at all debatable, then it should not be speedied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well... if either book actually exists (or their authors, for that matter), then I guess that their way out of print, so their not really verifiable. Neither article is/was exactly the best written article, but they rarely begin that way... There seems to be other web references available for "Nape Braid" and Kinky hose.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"Book out of print" is NOT synonymous with unverifiable. We still have libraries. Wikipedia should resist this bias for online-verifiability only. Ohms Law's link for sources definitely says that the article should not have been speedied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Look at that Google search and point me to a single source that actually discusses a hair style called "kinky hose". The 'sources' in the article score exactly zero Google hits, which is basically impossible for a genuine book. Take it to deletion review if you like, but don't do it just for the sake of process when this is obviously a blatant hoax, if you actually look into the matter. Fences&Windows 22:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the referenced books could be this - Styles of the stars, but an updated(2008) version . It seems like the type of book that could be reprinted as stars keep changing. SunCreator (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Another version of same book. Read the overview - right on topic I'd say. SunCreator (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Saying that, the topics seems without any notability. SunCreator (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dewcheck

re Dewcheck i agree with comments on discusion page, it's an advertising 79.75.80.132 (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notifying talk pages when mergers are proposed

I took part recently in the afd on Edgar Griffin. The result was to merge with Nick Griffin. Unfortunately the editors of that page were rather put out by what they regarded as extraneous material appearing there. Is there a way to set up a process to ensure that the talk pages of potential destination articles are notified when an article might be merged. THat way they get a chance to agree/object/whatever before they are face with a fait accompli.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A "merge" result in an AfD isn't binding on the editors in the target article, who may rightly feel that the information does not belong. I believe a "merge" result is technically a "delete and redirect", right? If the new host article editors don't want it, I guess it's in limbo. You can try adding it to other articles, or creating a new one that does not have the faults of the old one. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"Merge" is actually a "keep and edit" outcome by default, in that no administrative tools are needed to accomplish the recommended outcome. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not "delete and redirect", merge indicates that the content should be placed somewhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That close was poor in that there were 3 deletes, 4 merges and 4 keeps so there was no consensus for merger. The only substantive point was that there was no consensus for deletion which is the limited scope of AFD discussions. If there is no consensus for the merged material then revert the contentious changes. I would support this action as it seems unwise to merge BLPs together in controversial cases as this will tend to multiply and complicate the issues. Better to keep them separate and simple. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Me and Bobby Fischer is nothing more than an ad for a non-notable DVD

I believe Me and Bobby Fischer is a candidate for speedy deletion. The article is nothing less than an ad for the DVD. It’s also a copyright violation as it’s a copy and paste from the DVD's webpage[10]. However the copyright isn’t the biggest problem. The documentary does not appear on IMDb and googling I can find it only on Amazon which does not mean it’s at all notable, but only for sale.

I’m sorry if I've made any mistake in the process, but tried reading about the speedy deletion process, but don’t have the time to understand it well enough, so I simply posted the notice here. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the copyvio text. If you feel it needs to be deleted, either PROD the article or send it through AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I've PRODed it. SunCreator (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

KFTZ Notability?

Is there any reason to keep this article? It's only fact other than being contained within categories is that a Youtube celebrity (who has had questionable notability on his own) once worked there. Is there a wiki project (or other) which says that call letters should have an article dedicated to them? Why does this article exist and does it meet any grounds for deletion? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] 23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look notable from my quick search. If you can't find coverage of it in reliable sources from a more thorough search, nominating it for deletion would be reasonable. Fences&Windows 01:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
On a similar subject, there is an article for ShayCarl that has been reconstructed after being deleted multiple times. Subpages (to my knowledge) are not private and I was easily able to find this page via Google. This page contains personal information that I believe should not be made public (such as the names of ShayCarl's 3 children and wife). He has specifically said this many times in his youtube videos that he does not wish for people to know their real names for privacy's sake which is why they are all given nicknames in his videos. Is another user's subpage a 'workaround' to a deleted article? There has already been a discussion with a final decision to delete and has been deleted multiple times. There have been no further productive edits to this subpages (such as adding reliable sources or adding notability--the problems which led to its deletion). How could I go about nominating such a page for deletion--if at all possible? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with an IP created AfD on Windows library files

I need help to create the nomination page. I loaded the preload onto the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Windows library files, and need it to be renamed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows library files to complete the process. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it was moved, thanks. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I nominate Claudia Lynx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Lynx

Just read the first few lines and it should be clear. The content of the article is based on pure opinion, not fact, and not even disguised at that. No sources beyond a personal website and myspace. Obviously set up by the person themself as a self-promotional tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi (talk • contribs) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to follow the instructions on the page to nominate an article for deletion. Furthermore the sentence you referred to was inserted only a few days ago. Hut 8.5 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect AfD for Misa campo.

Can I redirect the AfD for Misa campo to Misa Campo? --macbookair3140 (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the Misa campo article was speedily deleted as G4 by User:Nancy, so a redirect will not be necessary. Jujutacular T · C 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disingenuous Twaddle

Resolved
 – Smerdis of Tion userfied the article. Many thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've participated in this discussion, in which the article author concedes that the article should probably be deleted, and has asked that "Whoever is able to delete the thing, please go ahead and kill it", in order to keep the debate from carrying on longer than necessary. There is one Keep !vote, though it lacks any rationale. I'd go ahead and close it, but I participated and would prefer someone uninvolved. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Final cut privilege

Can someone take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final cut privilege? There has been no activity in months, the deletion notice on the article has long since been removed (actually I'm not sure there ever was one), but the AfD doesn't seem to have ever been closed. I think it's time for someone to either close the AfD or relist it. Rlendog (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as keep. Jujutacular T · C 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Articles for merging (AfM)

Currently, as the system is, when a merge is suggested, the templates {{merge}} and {{mergefrom}} are placed on the tops of the pages where someone has suggested a merge. More often than not, these seem to go largely ignored and they sit there indefinitely. Many of these articles are orphaned, so they get little if any notice from those who would be interested in commenting. Nothing productive occurs. The bottom line, this is a somewhat broken system.

Similar "forcible" merging discussions are regularly held for other namespaces, such as categories (CFM) and templates (TFM).

Here is an idea to solve this problem: It would be called Articles for merging (AfM). Anyone could propose that one article be merged into another. (If the nom cannot think of a good target article him/herself, s/he could seek input during the discussion)

The nomination process would be very similar to AfD. But the final result would not be the page getting deleted. Deletion of the page from such a discussion would not be allowed, and if anyone wants the page to be deleted, they would have to make a separate AfD proposal.

If such a proposal takes place, the page proposed for merging would have a template reading the following at the top:

This article is being considered for merging to [target article (if applicable)]. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for merging page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.

The discussion would take place for around a week (with exceptions), just like an AfD. If the conclusion of the discussion shows there is consensus to merge, editors would be encouraged to merge the page as soon as possible. If not, it would remain as it was before, though it could always be proposed again in the future.

Other details would be as follows:

  • A similar notice would appear on the target page, if applicable
  • It would be possible to propose two or more pages for merging into a single article with a non-existent title
  • ANY editor could carry out the merge following closure of the discussion
  • The merging would not be in stone forever, and any editor thereafter could unmerge the page if s/he has a good reason for doing so
  • Use of the {{merge}} template would not be discontinued, and this could still be used if need be

Sebwite (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to review WT:Articles for discussion/Proposal 1 (closed as supported January 2010) and WP:Mergers for discussion (marked as failed May 2009). Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have seen these already. I am still bringing it up here because it seems like nothing has occurred. Sebwite (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The proposal to roll merging into AfD gained consensus - we just need to agree how to do it. Why start a new proposal instead? Fences&Windows 17:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I actually have been working on one. Here if is: Wikipedia:Articles for merging. Sebwite (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Could I get an opinion on this: Patterns in dimesions?

I'm looking at Patterns in dimesions and while it clearly isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, it comes across much more as an essay than an encyclopedia article. I don't think it could possibly be properly referenced, with any amount of effort. What does the community think?

SmokingNewton (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just closed the AfD early as delete, there was no value in leaving it open any longer as the result was a foregone conclusion. Fences&Windows 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the AfD process

I have just nominated an article for deletion for the first time and wanted to make a few comments on the AfD process:

1. In Step 2 there should be more clarity about which bullet points relate to the either/or presented. I think it is the case that you either do the first 2 bullet points, or the next two, and then the final four bullets are done whatever.

2. The deletion sorting template is mentioned in Step 2 and then again in 'notifying others'. Should it only be in one place?

3. In step 3 the guidance refers to inserting 'afd3' on the log page, but when you go to the log there is already a list of articles in a different format and I just followed the existing, so is the 'afd3' necessary.

I think these points could be considered for the guidance, although maybe they've been left before, and more experienced AfD users may have a view. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Use Twinkle. That's the best guidance. Fences&Windows 16:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm on IE so I see it doesn't apply, but if Twinkle is preferred can it not be added to the guidance? Eldumpo (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It's already there: "Autoconfirmed registered users can use the Twinkle tool for nominating articles for deletion." Jujutacular T · C 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but could the wording be changed to say it is recommended to use. Also, for those who can't/don't use Twinkle can the above changes still be considered to the 3 steps. Eldumpo (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with log?

I just nominated Conspiracy journalism, but I did something wrong, because it's not showing up right on the log. I think this is my first AFD submission. Would someone please help? Maurreen (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine now. Was the transclusion displaying as a redlink? If so, it was probably a sync issue that self-corrects fairly quickly. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I think someone fixed it soon after. I think the header was not displaying at all. Maurreen (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I found the fix: User:Metropolitan90 added the missing header a few minutes later. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Machine

Hi, an editor posted a request at WP:EAR, which I reproduce here as it seems to be a more appropriate venue.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Machine, I pointed out that the article creator could ask for userfication. The editor took it upon himself in good faith to move Loud Machine into his user space before the AFD was completed. Can some admin please either undo this so that the AFD can run its full course, or make a bold decision and close the AFD early, and clear out the article space redirect? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

posted by Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin will work out what has happened, but by all means make a note of it in the AfD. Any ordinary editor may move the page back over the redirect if it was a single move, but I wouldn't bother. Another move complicates things further, and there is a very good chance that userfication is a good idea. The real question is: "Does anyone disagree that the page should be removed from mainspace"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Article creators voting in their article's AFDs.

Is it legal? Example, someone nominated an article for deletion, then the article's creator goes to the AFD then votes "Keep". Is that allowed by Wikipedia's policies? I have encountered this problem sometimes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Perfectly acceptable. –Whitehorse1 05:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • If you think about it, they're ideally placed to comment at the AfD if they can try to be objective about the article's merits. After all, having created it they have ready access to the sources used, and can fix, expand on or clarify anything based on the existing sourcing. Plus, you normally inform them on their talkpage it's been nominated; it would be churlish to insist they keep quiet. ;) –Whitehorse1 05:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • What I meant is that they actually vote instead of comment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • You see, instead of using Comment as in to comment about the article, they instead say Keep, Vote:Keep the article etc. While I'm fine that they talk in the AFD, I'm a little worried when it comes to them actually voting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, they can have a say in that respect, too. Naturally, it's more likely they'll vote (so to speak) "keep" than anything else of course! You see other approaches sometimes as well, such as "I created this ages ago. It seemed notable at the time, but I'm not so sure now." etc. In answer to your question though, there's no reason to discount their contribution to the discussion, if it's well-grounded in policy/guidelines, simply because they created the article originally. Sometimes they may mention they created it as well, but it's easy to see from the history and isn't obligatory anyway. –Whitehorse1 06:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not a ballot. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe the article creator is one of the very best people to comment (not just vote) in an AfD. Here's why: The creator is the one most familiar with the subject, and can tell more about it than others who are just commenting for the sake of voting. Not just that, but I feel the creator's comments deserve even more weight, assuming the creation was in good faith. When all others are just being "judges," the creator actually knows why s/he thinks the article belongs. Yes, the creator's vote will be a keep probably 99% of the time or something like that. But that's a good thing. Sebwite (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects which break searches?

At this point, Cavalry Division is a redirect to Cavalry Division (United Kingdom). Unfortunately, it breaks searches for cavalry division. 72.66.58.217 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to click "search" rather than "Go" or pressing enter. –xenotalk 23:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Periodic Table (Simon Basher book)

Would somebody complete step 2 on this non-notable book? Prod was contested by somebody who's rationale seems to be that their kid likes it. 67.180.84.52 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I said two different things. I said that I cleaned up the article because my son had just bought the book, and then I removed the "prod" with the comment, "give the kid a break", where the "kid" referred to the young editor who created the article, not my son. The book may well be borderline notable, I haven't looked into it, but the downside of prodding and AfDing a first-time editor's good-faith attempt at creating an article about something that interests them -- which wasn't a bad attempt, needing just a bit of cleanup -- completely outweighs the value of deleting it. Put it this way: Wikipedia is not hurt by having an article about this book, and it is helped, in the long-term, by encouraging a new editor. That's why you should have used some common sense and not prodded it, and more common sense by not nominating it for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

100% Hell

Another page that needs step 2 completed. 67.180.84.52 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:JamesBWatson: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100% Hell. Jujutacular T · C 01:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AFDs listed on wrong day's log, still open after a month

No idea why this happened, but apparently on 21 February, a user added three AFDs to the log for 22 January, with the result that two of them are still listed there and are still open, a month after the nominations were made. If someone could take the necessary steps to resolve or relist the discussions, it would be appreciated. Propaniac (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. "Speedy" kept and immediately renominated one; closed the other. Tim Song (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Propaniac (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Shy Ronnie

Another for step 2 completion. 67.180.84.52 (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 17 log

Could someone with more technical ability than me please check out the March 17 log? The bottom half of the AfDs are all shaded blue as if they've all been closed. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The problem was this AFD. It wasn't properly closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! --Mkativerata (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey A. Landis

An IP 76.200.153.184 (talk · contribs) has placed an AfD banner on Geoffrey A. Landis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but not listed the discussion. It looks like vandalism to me - can someone remove it? The subject seemed to think that it was me who had placed it for some reason.[11] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How to withdraw an AfD?

Can someone do me a favour and withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevator pitch on my behalf? Having seen the first response I realise I was hasty in nominating and that the arguments I applied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Sales Pitch (an AfD I stand by) do not apply here. I have removed the AfD tag from the article but would appreciate someone tidying up / closing / deleting the discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done the needful. –xenotalk 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"such as such as vandalism"

"such as" is doubled. please fix. -- 92.229.225.105 (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 07:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig

On 25 March, somebody nominated Johanna Budwig for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig but the nomination was attached to the already closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 16 page. Consequently, few people have seen it. Could somebody sort this mess out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunquam Dormio (talk • contribs)

Done. I removed it from the old log and added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 28. Also fixed the formatting of the AFD, and made a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig. Jujutacular T · C 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Category:Articles for Deletion

FYI, Category:Articles for Deletion has been nominated for deletion.

76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hilltop Radio

I have tried to nominate this for AFD, but I cannot start the discussion because I am not registered. 91.84.81.164 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you could provide a rationale, I will create the nomination. Jujutacular T · C 19:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The article in question was previously nominated for deletion back in January with the rationale another non-notable pirate radio station. The result was "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes there was an AFD, however no-one participated, except a contributor to the article, and it seems the nominee. My rationale is similar to the original AFD, and that it looks entirely unreferenced. A Google search shows nothing for this station except mirrors of the Wikipedia article. 91.84.81.164 (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilltop Radio (2nd nomination). Jujutacular T · C 15:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Sivananda Radha

Discussion Is still open in Saturday's (March 20) listing, could we relist it as there seems to be no consensus? Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Main Page

Just had to. April Fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.67.156 (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WhiteSmoke

The article WhiteSmoke is blatant advertising. Suggest it is deleted. 86.142.110.195 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

Kirk Game

Does anyone else think this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Game is a candidate for deletion? It doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria for sports people, and the image is highly misleading as it is taken outside the Sansiro stadium, implying that the subject had some sort of link with one of the Milan clubs.

Also, there may be a conflict of interest as the vast majority of edits to the article, including its creation, were made by the same user who has no other activity on Wikipedia. MarkRae (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Game. Jujutacular T · C 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. MarkRae (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender

This item has been open for 17 days with no comments for the past week. Looks like it may have fallen through the cracks on closing. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Now closed by Stifle. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Article about SpectorSoft sounds promotionals and fails to warn of the legal and security risks of running spyware

Hi, I just had a look at SpectorSoft and left my thoughts about it on the discussion page.

In short: The article promotes the use of of a software marketed by the manufacturer as dual use spyware/security product in the field of parental and educational control without mentioning the legal and personal risks involved both for the administrative user and the monitored persons. The edit history indicates that the article is used as a platform to promote and advocate the legality of controversial and risky use cases by deleting or re-wording references to involved risks. Weather or not - IMV in it's current biased form it can be considered as possibly harmful to readers not aware of the risks of running spyware (legal/data loss/abuse) on their kid's or pupil's computers and should be thoroughly re-edited or deleted if it shows that it can't be protected from abuse. (78.52.128.91 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for caring about the issue, but this is not a situation where deletion is the answer; better to edit the article and improve it. See alternatives to deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 19:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Austin Carlile

The article on Austin Carlile breaches the Wikipedia policy of individuality: there is nothing significant about him except the fact that he was previously in Attack Attack! and Of Mice & Men. I tried creating an article on Nick Barham, but it was deleted for the same reason. Same situation here. I'm requesting a redirect to the Attack Attack! page, just as Barham's does. Qotsa37 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Barham has only been in one notable band, whereas Carlile has been in two. Being in two independently notable bands satisfies the notability guideline WP:BAND, #6. Jujutacular T · C 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 Kepulauan Obi earthquake

This is a non-notable, insignificant earthquake. I have given various reasons why on the article's talk page. Justmeagain83 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unlinking AfDd articles

After I delete an article at AfD, I use Twinkle etc. to unlink the article in other articles - otherwise, I find the articles are often recreated. I've recently run into a situation where an editor insists on re-linking, making it a red link, for "consistency". What is the general rule in these kinds of situations? Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The only situation I can think of offhand where an argument of consistency might hold any water at all is as a list entry, in which case the answer would be to remove the entry entirely per WP:LSC rather than just delinking it. —Korath (Talk) 22:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It would depend on why the article was deleted. If it was for reasons other than lack of notability or WP:NOT then it could be recreated in a suitable way. Something like a future album or single could remain a red link until the record is out, and a non controversial article can be written. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Also remember that links may be about a different subject with the same name. I have deleted (through Speedy, but if it had come to AfD,it would have been deleted as well) Cristian Rojas, an article about a non notable 15 year old Peruvian footballer. However, I have not removed the links to the article, as these were for a potentially notable Chilean player of Deportes Antofagasta, or the potentially notable Paraguayan player from Jaibos Tampico Madero. So, certainly for more or less common names, blind or bot delinking shouldn't be done. In most other cases, it is perfectly allright though. Fram (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the general rule should be one of administrator discretion: If the closing administrator, who took time to assess the situation, thinks that the subject will not warrant its own article in the foreseeable future (e.g. someone completely non-notable, a dictionary definition without any possible encyclopedic value etc.), they can de-link links to this article. If on the other hand the closing administrator realizes that the reasons for deletion may cease to exist in the future (e.g. not-yet-notable person, possibly future notable subject, future album/game/etc. without coverage so far, etc.), they shouldn't. I'd advise against any bot doing such delinking though since a bot cannot decide whether de-linking is desirable (by bot I mean any unsupervised automatic process, not using Twinkle or similar). Regards SoWhy 09:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If there is explicit consensus for delinking, the closer should note this in the closing statement, with the option of implementing it. Otherwise, the closer or any other editor may delink as ordinary editor actions, subject to reversion. I see this as a straight content issue: the closing admin should not have additional powers or responsibilities here. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a guideline about this, WP:REDDEAL. I sometimes remove redlinks after an AfD/PROD, and sometimes not. For slam-dunk deletes (stuff with zero independent sources, not related to anything else), I usually remove the links as well. For other stuff, it depends how likely I forsee that an article on the topic may appear in, say, one year time. Pcap ping 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Other non-notable earthquake articles

I also feel that 2010 New Ireland earthquake, 2010 Crete earthquake and 2010 New Guinea earthquake should receive AfD nominations. Justmeagain83 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're registered, nominate them for yourself. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG

Is there a good explanation for the tagging of a lot of articles by User:Sfan00 IMG? Most of them are on Wikimedia Commons and for me this mass tagging is looking like vandalism.--Stone (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He gave just a little to few explanation, but he is only deleting empty links here on en:wiki.--Stone (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Samofi: Problem of Slovak nationality in Hungarian Kingdom

url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Slovak_nationality_in_Hungarian_Kingdom Article was nominated for deletion because of Horbatimus told its my thoughts. Article is based on Slovak-Hungarian book (http://www.universum-eu.sk/knihy/071_2007-regionalna_identita.html) Article is important for global understandig of identity in Hungarian Kingdom. Its not personal thoughts I used slovak, hungarian, german and english matherials to be neutral. Sources are written by scholars. Main matherial - http://www.universum-eu.sk/knihy/071_2007-regionalna_identita.html has english abstracts to each chapter so its possible to verify. Its slovak-hungarian article, so neutral. SZARKA is Magyar Professor from Hungarian academy of science, Sutaj is Slovak Professor. Here is online version of book: http://www.saske.sk/SVU/downloads/publikacie/Regionalna_identita_2007.pdf Horbatimus has problems with Slovaks probably he is chauvinist. Maybe its written like essay, but lot of articles starts like stubs or with form as essay and they are improved to encyclopedic version like article about Slovak-Hungarian relations, passage about Malinova Hedviga. NOT DELETE and improve the article. I can later improve this article but Iam busy now. Its big historical issue, its lot of books written about this, but its hot topic for Hungarian nationalists. Write something more constructive for deleteing this article. Austrian professor Seidler writes about this: http://forschungsnewsletter.univie.ac.at/index.php?id=13569&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3384&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=13564&cHash=853d698f19 Its big theme, its necessary to be this topic in wikipedia, to understand identity in Hungarian Kingdom. (Samofi (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Confusion caused by vector skin

Twice today I have found comments posted to the talk pages of AfD discussions rather than to the discussions themselves.[12][13] I'm sure this is caused by the change to using the Vector skin as default, which changes the tab for the talk page from Monobook's "talk" to "discussion". This seems to be a bad idea when the project page itself is a discussion. An unfamiliar user will see the "discussion" tab and, quite understandably, assume that that is the place to click to join the discussion. Any ideas for improving this? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think this should be fed back to the responsible team as soon as possible so that they can also start thinking about ways to fix this right away. It doesn't look as if there is a simple solution at all. Hans Adler 11:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent a feedback message from this page describing the problem and referencing this discussion. Does anyone know where these messages go, and whether they tend to get responses? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

problem with listing a disputed AFD correctly

Abdul Hamid (poet) was up for afd, and deletion was decided on, but article exists and the link to the current afd seems broken somehow. can someone who knows more about the technical aspects of this look into this? im stumped, which is no surprise to me. I did vote for delete, but would accept any other further discussions or decisions, just want to see this whole thing done correctlyMercurywoodrose (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done AFD in question fixed and transcluded. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can the procedure be improved?

I have been involved in a number of AfDs involving articles about people or concepts for which no reliable sources exist. Invariably there are numerous editors who will vote to keep, saying that the topic is notable, a Google search returns "x" hits, etc. After the discussion ends with "no consensus", none of the defending editors make any attempt to improve the article. Months or years later the process is repeated. It should be possible to improve this procedure. I recommend that when there is "no consensus" that the administrator establish required improvements to articles and if they are not met then the article should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Where BLPs are concerned, "no consensus" is usually an indication of marginal notability, and we should generally default to Delete in such cases. I propose amending the instructions accordingly. The risks of retaining a poor article on a living person with marginal notability far outweigh the risks of not having an article on a marginally notable person. --JN466 07:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
For other articles, maybe something like this could be done WP:INCUBATE or a "suspend" or "probation" option. If it were to be done, I think it shouldn't be the admin's reponsibility to outline any needed improvements. Maurreen (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Admins can and should weigh in their closing decision whether to give credence to keep !votes that ignore a lack of sources. A lack of sources is not the only reason for a 'no consensus' decision on a BLP, so I would yet again oppose this perennial suggestion of 'no consensus' defaulting to delete (this has failed to reach consensus three times to my knowledge). Marginally notable people are less often vandalism targets and the risk of deleting marginally notable BLPs on a 'no consensus' basis is driving away contributors due to rampant deletionism. All that would be needed is a block of deletionists to say "Delete, not enough sources" at each BLP AfD and unthinking admins will close as 'no consensus, delete', essentially leading to any BLP that faces AfD being deleted. Maurreen's suggestion of WP:INCUBATEing the article is a good one that is already sometimes done for borderline articles at AfD or after deletion review. AfD works pretty well and usually comes to the right decision: we can all think of exceptions, but hard cases make bad law. Fences&Windows 13:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a number of problems with this. Most notably the issue that there are many good articles that will be trashed if we do this. Having a good starting point allows one to source the article much more easily than writing it from nothing. If you feel that there are reasonable sources and are offended by the lack of sourcing, source it. I'd hope we aren't keeping articles that have no sources and no one can find sources. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Massively opposed. Quite aside from the fact that there is no deadline, in the unlikely event that we do have any admins who're underworked enough to spend their volunteering time "establishing required improvements", then on what basis should they do so? The policies and guidelines we already have? (Articles that fail those should be deleted anyway). Criteria set by the deletion camp during the debate? (I can see how that'll go). The admin's personal opinion? (Admins implement consensus and policies; the'yre expected to exercise good judgment but only within narrow parameters. They certainly don't decide article content and they shouldn't).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reject There is no group of editors--and as far as I can tell no individual editors -- who uniformly vote to keep unsourceable articles, and the p[roof of that is that most articles brought to afd are in fact deleted. The necessary relatively skeptical attitude towards minor blp notability is already built into the procedure, because everyone approaches these articles with a view that they need to be properly supported, and we are more restrictive in what sources we allow. There is no problem demonstrated, and no need for a solution. I would also disagree with adding additional intermediate closures like suspend; we already have userify, and we use that widely. Cearly, those with a deletionist tendency think we keep too many articles; those who tend to feel as I think we tend to keep too few. That sort of disagreement is evidence that the process if at least approximately fair. We make mistakes, many more than we ought to, but we make them in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    • This article (this is what it looked like when it was nominated for deletion) was kept with "no consensus". In my opinion, and that of others, it's a news article, not an encyclopedia article. Although the article has improved since its nomination, I think we can both agree that it would never be accepted in anything like its present form for publication in any reputable encyclopedia. I am uncomfortable with a process that keeps such BLPs in mainspace. --JN466 10:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No The proposal puts far too much responsibility onto the closing admin. This then becomes effectively 'default to delete', which is worse than what we already have (remember that 'keep' and 'delete' are not the only desired outcomes of an AfD).   pablohablo. 21:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an article about an amateur Canadian poet/artist created by the subject that has been nominated for deletion three times with a result of no consensus. This person has not been written about in any Canadian newspaper. The biography of a minor official in the Liberal Party of Australia that was created by a relative was kept although she has never been mentioned in the Australian press, and was only mentioned in a book about her state party once briefly in a footnote. Surely in cases like this the defenders of the article should be required to meet the criteria for biographies. TFD 00:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Only in limited cases would I support "no consensus"="delete". One being where the subject is requesting deletion. (and that has been done). In almost all other cases where a BLP is bought to AFD, the issue is something that has nothing to do with whether or not the subject is still converting oxygen into C02. If the issue is whether or not the subject meets WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG or another guideline then, alive or dead, "no consensus" should default to "keep". Now that doesn't mean that the closing admin can't take a WP:BLP related action after the close. One example would be closing an AFD on an unsourced BLP as "no consensus" (or even "keep") and then redirecting it to a relevant target "per WP:BLP" until sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The improvement is needed at Drv, not Afd. Far too many times a closer will close an Afd full of the exact type of lame 'sourced, notable' opinions you describe, which is fine, you can call that giving leeway in process, but when you kick it to Drv to get a second opinion, which is where errors can be corrected, all you get is a second round of 'sourced, notable', instead of a proper examination of whether the closer read the Afd correctly, and correctly weighted such weak arguments or not in terms of proper policies such as BLP and ENT etc, which actually go into detail as to why the presence of sources is not the only bar to inclusion. If Drv worked like its supposed to, the Eric Ely decision would be overturned easily. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Or perhaps it's that not everyone agrees with your opinions on notability... I think DrV does a fine job (of course, I hang out there a lot). I don't always agree with the outcomes, but things are looked at pretty darn carefully.
To address your specific concerns: WP:ENT is specifically a broadening of the inclusion guidelines, not a narrowing. "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." To complain that "...ENT etc, which actually go into detail as to why the presence of sources is not the only bar to inclusion" is, I think, to misunderstand WP:ENT. WP:BLP isn't an inclusion criteria nor does it address inclusion. So it too doesn't add a bar to inclusion as far as I can tell. Could you explain what additional bars you believe to be raised by WP:ENT and WP:BLP?Hobit (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what your asking, but if you think Drv is currently acting as a proper venue to review the actions of the closer, rather than just a second chance to give 'sourced, notbale' non-reasons, you are maybe one of those people compounding the problem. BLP is quite clear, if it doesn't look like a full and proper biography, it doesn't belong here. ENT is quite clear, if a person hasn't had multiple significant roles, it doesn't belong here. You will see in the 'biography' for Tim Marriott how Afd and Drv is an utter fail-fest right now on both these quite basic points, and as ever, just like Ely, the mere presence of sources is still the only thing that seemingly matters when trying to get rid of non-biographical biographies of patently non-notable people. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP and notability are two distinct separate concepts. BLP does not require an article about a living person to be notable, only that we're not providing unsourced information about that person. Notability is about whether the person is actually notable enough to have a separate article. An article about a living person that is notable per WP:N or any sub-guideline will likely meet BLP's provisions. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
<ec>:::WP:ENT says that if WP:N isn't met you can still have an article if that additional criteria is met. "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Are claiming that if the short list on WP:ENT isn't met then the article shouldn't exist even if WP:N is met? Hobit (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee: The mere presence of sources is the only thing that matters when we discuss notability and verifiability. You claim the guy is "patently non-notable": Well, you are wrong. There are sources, so notability is established. --Cyclopiatalk 18:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You fail to take into account, or are probably "blissfully unaware", that WP:N asks for sources that "address the subject directly in detail", that WP:N says, "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage", that WP:BLP1E says, "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.", and much else besides. --JN466 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"There are sources, so notability is established" Sorry, but if that's your view on notability, you are in the minority, by a mile. I've no idea what Masem or Hobit are on about, but this is exaclty the attitude which is making Afd/Drv a farce. Tim Marriot is a perfect example of the kind of crap that gets kept with this off the wall idea of notability which is frankly more like Wikipedia of 2006 than 2010. Case law in the cases that get true scrutiny is clear time and again that Wikipedia is not here to host a biography if it does not look like, or have a hope in hell of looking like, a biography, and we have developed things like ENT to show exactly what that means for people like Marriot, whose only claim to notabiity is under ENT. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
JN466: I am perfectly aware of what WP:N and WP:BLP1E say. Yet, if there are sources that are in agreement with these policies/guidelines, that's all we need. We don't need anything else. Now, in the case of mr.Ely: if there are grounds for BLP1E, you are free to rename and restructure the article to match the event instead of the person: I did it myself a lot of times, when articles were challenged for BLP1E reasons.
MickMacNee: First, if I am on the minority, why are Afd/Drv's consistently against your judgement? Second: if I am on the minority, WP:N should have reflected that long ago. AFD and DRV in my opinion become farces when they delete articles for mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons as it routinely unfortunately happens: your mileage may vary. --Cyclopiatalk 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
ENT is the consensus backed artist specific interpretation of N. That is not a fringe view, so if Afd/Drv is ignoring this for articles whose sole claim to notability is as an artist, its broken.MickMacNee (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
ENT is specifically more inclusive than WP:N, not less. It says "either meets WP:N -or- this list specifically for entertainers". You seem to disagree with that even though I've quoted the part that specifically says that a number of times. Are we reading the same sentence and getting different meanings? Hobit (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What I am trying to say, specifically, is that WP:N and WP:BLP present two very different means and reasons to delete an article, and/or deal with a problematic article. BLP is a stronger statement of WP:V, requiring sources for any claims and deleting articles with zero sources (nowadays), and being very proactive about that to protect Wikipedia. Notability is to determine whether we should have an article about a topic, and is never the grounds for immediate deletion, and is a means to help with discrimination on WP but by no means a legal protection. If one can provide a bare-bones statement that means BIO/ENT/whatever that satisfies BLP, there is no immediate grounds to delete that article, but you can question the applicable nature of whatever BIO/ENT criteria apply. On the other hand, if that claim is made and there are no apparent sources, to the sticky-prod it shall go. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You are confusing the legalistic and admin purpose of BLP with its more general purpose of acting as a general guide as to when and when not to write about people. That is the case law I refer to. And in that context, N and BLP dovetail perfectly to act as a very good indication of what biographies to keep and what to delete, if only Afd/Drv stopped with the simplistic 'soruced, notable' clap trap. MickMacNee (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP is a guide that regulates how to write about people, not "when and when not". "Sourced, notable" is not a trap: is the way things have to be, otherwise we would put biased, personal judgement into what is notable and what not (WP:NOT concerns aside). Just to clarify, BLP1E has not to do with that either: if an event involving a subject is notable, it can be covered, we simply avoid to write it as a biography. --Cyclopiatalk 12:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reject as before. No consensus defaults to keep. BLP concerns will already be reflected in the consensus so they needn't be reflected in the interpretation.Icewedge (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Reject. This very suggestion is yet another manifestation of Wikipedia's original sin, worship of "Notability" instead of "ACCURACY". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be encyclopedic. If someone takes the time to write on a topic, the key issues should be: 1. Is it ACCURATE? 2. Is it VERIFIABLE? and 3. Is it written dispassionately from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW? The whole notion that a topic somehow isn't worthy because it hasn't appeared in the New York Times, Time magazine, or some other mainstream media outlet, which is more or less the ultimate gist of the "default-to-erase" suggestion here, strikes me as simplistic, ahistorical, and destructive. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reject For the same reasons that Carrite has so eloquently stated above.--Hokeman (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reject Generally. Where an article is unsourcable is a subject of much debate between partisans, but you can generally tell by the 4th afd in the 4th year of an article's life if it is truly outside our inclusion criteria. We don't need a hard and fast rule (another one) to govern closes or pressure content writers. If an article is sent to AfD and survives without sources being added, LIFE GOES ON. I also reject the attempt to solve the non-problem of non-notable BLPs through the back door. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If there are no reliable sources then the article does not meet our inclusion criteria or one of our core policies - Wikipedia:Verifiability, so if the AfD was closed as "no consensus" then it might be an erroneous close and should be brought to the attention of the closer, who will either amend the close or provide a suitable explanation. If the closer does not amend or provide a suitable explanation the case should be taken to WP:DRV. I hope this helps. SilkTork *YES! 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reject I would rather that "no consensus" go with keeping an article that deleting it.
  • That said I would like some guidelines on dealing two problems I have seen of late. The first for lack of a better name I will call carbon copying where a daughter article is created that provides nearly identical information to the parent article. The MacScoop and 9 to 5 Mac articles (Apple community being the parent) are prime examples of this--it not that that are not notable but the daughter articles don't add anything that is not in the parent article. The second problem has to due with coattailing where a topic only becomes notable because it is related to an ongoing news event. The PearC article is a prime example of this; the only reason anybody outside of Germany even knows PearC exists is due to the February 5, 2009 ruling in the Psystar case that opened up the EULA issue again. Once that event was eclipsed by withholding financial information claims in April and Psystar's announcement of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May as far as the general media was concerned PearC along with Bizon Computer (Russia), MacIntelligent (UK), OpeniMac (Argentina), and Quo Computing (California, USA) fell off the planet. Aside from an end of year and benchmarking article not even the regional Macwelt has much to say about PearC.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • For an example of the type of problem I am concerned with, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th_nomination). The subject is a Canadian poet/artist who has never been mentioned in Canadian newspapers. The initial response from editors who have no involvement with the article is to delete, but editors who participated in previous AfDs have been notified and may persuade the administrator to reach another "no consensus" decision. TFD (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • To answer the original question. In cases where the AFD discussion find sources not in the article then the closing editor/admin could say in closing that there is given 7 days to add a reference or the article is considered deletable. i.e Closing the article as no consensus. 7 days are given to add a reliable source to the article if none is added then the article should be deleted. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please DELETE all articles about living persons unless and until Wikimedia can devise procedures to exclude contentious and inaccurate information from being inserted into bios of living persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.64.16 (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • This isn't going to happen if the information is sourced. The only thing that can be done in that case is to make sure the information is presented in a neutral manner. Anything in an article about a living person which can be shown to be inaccurate or which is unsourced and contentious in some way, should be (and almost always is) deleted. This doesn't mean the article will be deleted, however. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of template-like amboxes in AfD discussion

Recently, an editor has used the following boxed message in AfD discussions:

See also this variant message used in a currently running AfD. As far as I'm aware, boxing up one's views like this is outside of standard practice, and three separate commenters at this AfD have removed the box or reformatted it into a comment. Also, a similar template that had been used by a few editors a year ago was deleted by community consensus; see here for the TfD. I seek community views on the appropriateness of using such templates/boxed messages in AfDs. I don't think such messages are appropriate--a regular "comment" or "note to closing admin" would seem to suffice. As I said in the TfD linked above, "There's a big difference between leaving a comment saying something like "I have just done a big update to this article in an attempt to address the concerns expressed in the preceded delete votes" and this template, which is in the passive voice and declares that those concerns have been addressed. One's an opinion expressed as such, the other is an opinion dressed up as a fact." Other views? Yilloslime TC 05:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  • No boxes - Used appropriately, a box like this would help make AfDs more readable and centralise discussion. However, I have very little faith in the ability of the most active members of the Article Rescue Squadron to use the box appropriately; so far it seems to be used as an attempt to win the AfD rather than as a neutral summataion of events, and used in that way it is disproportionately colourful and oversized in a way that may, consciously or otherwise, improperly sway debate. Barring some sort of protocol restricting their use to admins or other trusted Wikipedians, I'd prefer to do without them entirely. Also, if the box were to be used, it should say "may address concerns" rather than "addresses concerns", as not all delete votes and delete arguments can be overcome by an article improvement. They should be standardised and in all cases it would be inappropriate to put arguments and debating points inside the box (exactly as it would be to leave comments in 20-point font or otherwise use formatting to overemphasise your viewpoint). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No boxes Yes templates like these are inappropriate. If you have something to say, say it normal text like everyone else. If anything, big red templates in an AfD debate scream "shitfight going on right here", deterring helpful editors from participating and attracting the rabble. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep A box like this is important, exactly for what it states. Most votes are before the changes that were made and the closing administrator needs to be made aware of it. Admin people are not omniscient, they need to know the demarcation point in the !votes. We already allow boxes in debates such as "if you came here ..." and editors can dress their signatures in bright colors and add boxes to them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Boxes like this are dressing up the authors' opinions as being more valid then other users. They are wholly inappropriate and the closing admin will review the comment anyway when they close the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I also reverted the usage of this box. ARS members riding to the rescue of an article don't get to elevate their opinion of an article or it's status above others. Nor do they get to invalidate the opinions of other editors because they feel an article has substantially changed from before their vote to to the present. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No boxes clearly it is an attempt as Tarc says to elevate one's opinion above others. secondly to less experienced editors it looks like an official message box. it is merely a tactic to unfairly sway opinion. LibStar (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like gimmicks during a discussion, but at some point this may be necessary. If everyone who contributes examined carefully the current and past state of the article, and the prior discussion, it wouldn't be necessary-- but how often does that happen. I sometimes think that some of the more complicated or acrimonious afd discussions would benefit from a moderator--a role like that of a clerk at arb com.Thealternative is an early close which would technically need to be called no-consensus and an immediate relist, but I tried something like that recently on an issue where I was thoroughly indifferent, and everyone on both sides was angry at me about it. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh. The sooner ARS gets all of its stupid gimmicks taken away the better. That RAN is manually building an ambox for this instead of creating a template afresh is evidently because he's aware that the community won't stand for it, which is yet another example of the kind of disruption to AfD which is really the problem with AfD these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>

</sarcasm> Would be nice if it could be used responsibly. But it won't. Hans Adler 22:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  • No boxes. I don't find them any more helpful than plain text would be, and they're potentially misleading. They also seem to presume a certain irresponsibility on the part of the closing admin that I don't think is justified. Shimeru (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not use AFD's often change over time, and mention in plain or bold text in time sequence is enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't use the ars and fellow travellers like DGG (14-4 no consensus on an article you wanted kept and you feel agrieved that people didn't like your close DGG?) can express their opinions in plain text like the rest of us.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not want I can think of no situation where this would actually be a good idea. By all means people should note in an AfD when they have made significant improvements to an article, but this template expects people to fail to read a discussion before commenting, a serious breach of WP:AGF. In the best case scenario, pretty much everyone agrees that the reasons for nomination have been addressed, in which case the enormous blaring box is redundant. Far more likely, sadly, is that not everyone agrees that the necessary notability has been demonstrated by recent edits, making the box entirely inappropriate and disruptive. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No boxes, but "Note to closing admin" and standardized comments like {{Afdrescue}} and {{Afdchanged}} are fine. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No boxes and no members of the ARS should ever close AfDs, hopefully they don't. I think the ARS was a not too bad idea whose time has come and gone. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • ... how about "no people who think that 'no members of the ARS should ever close AfDs' should ever close AfDs?" Seems to me at least as valid an idea. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. One can be opposed to mindless fundamentalism in one direction without being a mindless fundamentalist of the opposite kind. Anyone who is not a mindless fundamentalist of one kind or the other should be able to see that. Hans Adler 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It never hurts WP to try to rescue an article. It is not the ARS that decides in the end , but the community, including whomever of the deletionists as well as the inclusionists care about that particular article. If the article is improved enough to be kept, good; if the article cannot be improved enough to be kept, it is deleted, which is also a good result. The only people who should really be concerned about the attempts to rescue the hopeless are the people who try, because they could better spend their efforts on the ones that were more likely. The negative comments here would only be justified if the ARS members & sympathizers were the only people who decided.
Bali raised a question about my closures. I promised at my AfD not to close a reasonably contested afd in favor of my own opinion. the article Bali mentioned was a contested afd, though I think many of the arguments on both sides not particularly reasonable. My own opinion about that article was delete or at best merge or rewrite. but I closed non-consensus which is an effective keep, in opposition to my own personal opinion. The article has, I believe since been merged, which is fine with me. A few days ago I closed a deletion to which I had actually contributed: I was the only person saying keep, 4 or 5 others said delete: I closed it as delete. I doubt I have ever closed a contested afd as keep unless it was essentially unanimous. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this advert. Seems slightly against the spirit of WP - but I don't know what AFD it refers to - or who to refer it to. So I'm mentioning it here :) Malick78 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - must be this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Could say the same for that AfD... Might be worth keeping an eye on considering the possibility of SPA's. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Single purpose accounts can't edit the AfD because it's semi-protected. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As I read that advert, it's a request to edit the article, not the afd. This is still galling, but not nearly so much as the "I'll pay you to vote keep!" that I expected from this section header. —Korath (Talk) 21:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I read it that way too. And of course paid editing isn't prohibited, unlike off-wiki canvassing. Just reason to watch the AfD for SPAs. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Silesian metropolitan region AfD nomination request

I've placed afd tag on Silesian metropolitan region article page and wrote my reasons in the talkpage as required by procedure. So I ask for registered users for completion of the nomination process.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silesian metropolitan region --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Dreyfus AfD nomination request

I placed the tag on the article Alexandra Dreyfus for reasons on the talkpage for reasons of questionable references and questionable notability. I am not too familiar with the AfD process. Someone has removed the AfD tag and I would like a registered user to complete the process and create a discussion on the issue. Thanks. 94.5.51.3 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Satan Vs God (2010 Movie) AfD nomination request

Another article nominated for deletion. Step 2 nneds completion. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan Vs God (2010 Movie) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Atkinson

Would somebody complete step 2? 76.102.27.141 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Atkinson. Feel free to add a rationale there. Jujutacular T · C 17:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I would prefer that the requester give a rationale before I complete the nomination but that's just me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD open for a long time without relisting

This AFD has been open for a month and has never been relisted. Can an uninvolved admin make a ruling, please? tedder (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if the nominator used Twinkle and it failed to transclude it to the log for Apr 26. I boldly added it to the current closable log. I would have closed it myself but it looks like there might be BLP issues. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ron. I saw that it didn't appear to be relisted, but I know sometimes the older logs seem to fade away. Can you place a relist notice on the AFD? tedder (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I relisted it at today's log. What seems to have happened is that the AfD was never transcluded (perhaps due to a bug). Normally, we have a dumb bot that picks those up and transcludes them, but for some reason this one was missed. Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Facility for anonymous users

A well-known limitation of the AfD system is the inability of anonymous users to nominate articles, because the discussion page has to be created. Yet, there have always been and always will be anonymous users who want to nominate articles to be deleted. There is a degree of inevitable "kludgyness", then, when the user has to ask what they should do; usually, it ends up that a registered user says "Write me a nomination and I'll do it for you". I recently took care of such a situation. I propose a page, to be titled "Articles for deletion/Anonymous nominations" or something similar, to be an AFC- or CHU-style central location for anonymous users to nominate articles. Once a nomination is written, registered clerks would then properly nominate the articles, of course making it clear that the idea was originally that of the anonymous user's. Thoughts? Xenon54 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific as to your definition of "clerk"? Considering you said "registered clerk" I'm presuming you just mean a user familiar with AfD to handle requests, or do you mean proper clerks like that of the ones over at SPI that are actually trained beforehand? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't envision it being very complicated, so, yes, a user with past AfD experience who knows what a good nomination looks like could probably do it without training. I should mention at this point, since I did not in the original proposal, that I also propose this page be a "first set of eyes". In other words, the clerks should be able to decline ONLY nominations that are obviously bad faith, such as a nomination of Earth or David Cameron -- also, perhaps, those that have clearly invalid reasons for deletion; I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this -- before they show up on the main page and waste a lot of time. Xenon54 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea and would be simple to implement. I saw the recent help desk posting you acted on and I've seen IPs asking for this at the help desk a few times before, though locating other examples of AfDs where this played out previously is not easy (I just tried). What do you think about having the page double as a place where inexperienced users who are not able to figure out how to do an AfD nomination themselves could post their nomination text and ask for help posting?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Although we do have WP:AFDHOWTO it would certainly help out the new users who are still unable to figure those directions out, especially if they are nominating an article for a second or third time. Xenon54 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
We could say something like "Although this page is intended chiefly for unregistered users, if you are a registered user and have both read WP:AFDHOWTO and attempted to post a nomination, but have not been successful following those instructions, you may list your nomination here and an experienced user will help you post or complete your nomination." I have probably completed 20 or so nominations from stumped users via the help desk, NCHD, village pump assistance (defunct), or from this page. Oh, and look at the thread directly below!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is what I envision the page looking like, with a few example nominations. Xenon54 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice work there Xenon. I agree with everything pretty much, the proposal, the page and the suggestions given above. Question though, third bullet down it says "Write your nomination in the space below.". Would it be possible to change this so that it reads "Write your rationale for nomination in the space below."? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we should add some detail on other deletion methods, as well as to see WP:BEFORE. Something like: "Please note that articles for deletion (AfD) is the place for listing controversial nominations that do not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, or are not suitable for the proposed deletion process (or the "sticky prod" process for articles on living persons). If those methods do not apply, please review WP:BEFORE. Pay special attention to the idea that you should attempt a good faith effort to locate sources before seeking to nominate an article on the basis of notability or unverifiability."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
  • Oppose If we wanted anonymous nominations then we could just enable them. There's presumably a reason that such nominations are not permitted; for example, that newbie users are too clueless to waste our time with frivolous nominations. Better to direct such users to WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • We do not have a policy not permitting such nominations and, in fact, we complete them when asked at the help desk and other places. The reason anonymous users cannot nominate articles at AfD is not because we don't allow it per se, but because part of the nomination process requires the creation of the nomination page, and unregistered users cannot create new pages (except in the talk namespaces). This is thus a technical bar, rather than any conscious decision to not allow these nominations. Moreover, by direct analogy to this proposed process, we allow users to suggest proposed articles with proposed text, and then post them for them where appropriate through Wikipedia:Articles for creation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The general nature of the prohibition is not a technical bar (because it is allowed in specific cases). It is therefore a matter of policy which we should not subvert. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no prohibition. You are finding a prohibition in policy based on the fact that it can't occur because there is a technical bar. And around we go in that circle. Policy can be implied, but there's nothing here to imply it. I would ask you to point to the policy, and since that's not possible because there is nothing on this codified, the spirit of any policy that speaks to the issue. In that regard, simply pointing to the fact that anonymous users were prohibited from creating pages (in the wake of the Seigenthaler incident in 2005) is far too attenuated to wash.

    To put it another way, until 2005, anonymous users could (and did) create AfDs and when the ability to create pages was turned off by Jimbo because of tumult resulting from a defamatory article posting by an anon, the ability to create the AfD nomination page was lost, for reasons that had nothing whatever to do with AfD. This, of course, left in place an IP's ability to tag articles for speedy deletion and to Prod. Articles for creation was created because legitimate articles are sought to be created by anons, and their proposals are monitored through that process. The same reason applies here; legitimate AfDs are sought to be created by anons and would be monitored through this process. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I see no legitimate or compelling reason for an IP to nominate anything for deletion, and it would cause more problems than anything else. IPs raise a hose of sockpuppetry issues as you never know who it is behind the number. One of em one day initiates an AfD, then that address gets released and picked up by someone else. What if that person then wishes to vote or comment in that discussion? What if it is just the first guy claiming all that to try to vote again? I want to see a committed identity be tied to a deletion discussion, and to see the lid remain on this can of worms. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This wouldn't be a new issue, anons participate in AfD discussions already don't they? How is an anonymous user behind an IP wanting to come back to a discussion any different to that of an IP wanting to return to a discussion that was opened on their behalf? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IPs make valid requests for AFDs. Here is a request that an IP made on this page. The IP had sound rationale and the article was deleted as a result of the AFD. IPs currently have a way of nominating articles for deletion, we do not need to add a new process. Nothing is broken in the way it happens right now. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There are various ways for IPs to nominate articles for deletion including (a) registering an account and doing it the same way as everybody else, (b) doing the steps they're able to do and having the rest fixed by a registered user, and (c) asking another Wikipedian to do the entire nomination. Someone who doesn't care enough to register an account or follow any of the above processes probably shouldn't be starting AfDs in the first place. An auxiliary benefit of the current process is that the number of nuisance and vandal AfDs is very low. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. We allow IP users to make AfD nominations already, so we might as well centralise it: if an IP user posts a request for an AfD with a decent rationale on this talk page, at WP:ANI, or via a request for an admin's help using {{tl:helpme}}, someone will usually pick it up and nominate by proxy. The suggestion that IP users are prohibited by policy from starting AfDs is wrong. Obviously disruptive or nonsensical nominations don't have to be acted upon. Fences&Windows 13:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with the assumption that we take to AfD claims that are based within a liberal reading of the deletion policy (ie: for any reason that a user with a registered account might choose to take an article to AfD) and reject those that arent (such as blatantly disruptive nominations outside of policy or "for the lulz"). If this page page becomes more time-consuming than it's worth, it could always be put up for MfD. The impenetrability of our deletion system is a bit bitey and anything that would introduce IPs into the process through acclimation to the proper methods of deletion would be a good thing. I remember long before I registered I tried to delete a vanispancruftisement article and doing so was nearly impossible. ThemFromSpace 15:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see a problem with the status quo. If something's really a problem, anonymous users can CSD it. I like the idea of anonymous users being restricted from non-trivial changes to the encyclopedia, or needing to go through a registered user (via completing the AfD, flagging the revision, or whatever) if they really don't want to register. Since we allow users to have multiple (assuming no abuse) pseudonymous registered accounts, the "anyone can edit" promise is easily met without bending over backwards to allow unregistered IPs to AfD things. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I've already "supported" above but since were doing the more formal listing here... Not allowing IPs to make nominations is against the spirit of our policies on openness. The reason for turning off page creation had nothing to do with this, but this technical bar was a side result (and the earlier switch to transcluding separately created nominations; before that nominations were simply listed on that day's VfD log page). The idea that this is already taken care of because a few IPs have been persistent enough to get the attention of someone at a non-specific forum to get it done ignores the issue entirely. The idea that we reduce bad AfDs and those by vandals by not doing this makes no sense; the whole point is that these AfDs are reviewed and only posted if found okay by an experienced user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose , I don't see why a non-registered user cannot register an account if the user feels strongly about discussing an article at AfD. It seems only a further burden on admins. --Cyclopiatalk 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    Comment: no reason why the editors adding IPs' AfDs would need to be admins, particularly. That said, I'm all for encouraging registration. TFOWRpropaganda 12:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • IPs are not supposed to be second-class citizens, folks. Disallowing IP comments at RfA is necessary because it is explicitly a vote and that would be too easy to game; disallowing IPs from raising AfDs is a different kettle of fish, because XfD is a discussion and poor arguments should fall flat quickly. Indeed, speedy keep #2 is designed for precisely that purpose. The present barrier is, as Fuhghettaboutit says, contrary to our spirit of openness, and most of the opposes (barring a point about potential for abuse from DustFormsWords, which is valid but applies equally to pretty much anything IPs are allowed to do) are transparently unconvincing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As with Fuhghettaboutit, I've already stated my opinion on this, above, but my actual formal !vote would be in favour of this proposal. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. IPs can already nominate AFD's; new process could make process easier for every one. Maurreen (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – if IPs are allowed to tag articles for speedy deletion or PROD, then why can't they request a deletion discussion? (Unless one wishes to propose we bar IPs from doing the former two.) –MuZemike 06:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose in recent times I have only seen bad faith nomination attempts from socks and vandals. It is easy to creat an account, or use AFC, so no reason to add a way for vandals to make life harder. And by the way anons are not necessary new or clueless like some claim above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    Comment. You're not the first to say something along this ground. I wish you or anyone would please explain how this would do that? Your objection is that bad faith nominations and vandal nominations are encountered and common from IPs, and this process would grease the wheels to that bad result. The proposal has experienced users only completing nominations that appear proper. Currently, those IP nominations that appear at AfD do so a catch-as-catch-can fashion, with some registered user approached to complete a nomination, with no guarantee of that user's AfD experience or that they would know when to say "no" to a request. I certainly agree with you that fostering bad faith and vandal nominations is bad. I just come to quite the opposite conclusion on this proposal's potential effect on that bad outcome; this should reduce the very result you oppose it for.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Then again, I oppose IP's being able to contest prods with no valid reasoning too. Since all you need is an email address to make an account and email accounts are plentiful and completely free, there is no reason someone can't make an account if they want to nom articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been more than a week since I made my proposal, and this discussion has been essentially abandoned for the past three days. There are 7 !votes in support, and 6 in opposition. This is not Congress; a proposal such as this needs solid consensus to be successfully implemented. A mere plurality of !votes in an evenly divided discussion cannot possibly be considered to be a consensus, regardless of the merits and validity of arguments from both sides. Therefore, I am withdrawing my proposal, bringing a formal end to this discussion. Xenon54 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing prior deleters

Article X has been speedily deleted three times under A7 by three different sysops, but keeps coming back with few or no changes. If an editor lists it for AfD with salt, is it canvassing for the AfD nominator to inform those three sysops that the article has reappeared and been nominated for AfD? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. It would surely be canvassing if one notified the taggers since they are most likely inclined to !vote delete. Imho, one shouldn't notify those admins though, even if it weren't canvassing: 1) They most likely don't remember a single article they deleted and 2) have no special interest in either the article or the subject. Just let the AFD run its course and if someone who had prior interaction with the article wants to participate, they most likely have it watchlisted and can do so anyway. Regards SoWhy 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Was just about to comment, and I agree fully with SoWhy. Jujutacular T · C 20:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Good enough. Thanks for the information. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fix Twinkle error

Could someone fix this for me, I can't figure out how to do it. I tried to use Twinkle to nom Cookson Group and it did nothing except leave to a bad link to the nonexistent subpage in the log. Could someone remove that, please, and I'll start over manually? Thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What's your rationale?
Also, you might try twinkling it a second time? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical difficulties

Sorry for accidentally nominating the AFD page for deletion... I was having technical difficulties. Issues should be fixed, feel free to remove those CSD tags. (wanted to remove an accidental nomination (to prod instead), didn't know how.) Gosox(55)(55) 01:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I closed the AFD and removed the second transclusion from the log. The article in question is currently tagged CSD A9 which is the right call as the band's article was deleted as A7. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How to request early closure?

I nominated List of Blame! characters that's been sitting in the queue to be copyedited for two years for deletion, because I had a meltdown of sorts - which was probably not the best decision I've ever made. How does one go about requesting a closure of such a mistake? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that simply mentioning that you withdraw your nomination from the AfD is sufficient.
If there are no delete !votes then - I believe - the AfD can be speedily closed (this is the case here).
If, however, there are delete !votes then the AfD should be kept open.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 12:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I post on the entry that the nom can be withdrawn? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think there's any specific format to use or place to put it - a simple "Comment: after consideration I now wish to withdraw my nom" should do it, or you could strike the nom with an explanation below it. So long as it's clear that you've withdrawn. Back when I did this there were no delete !votes, and someone speedily closed not long afterwards. I'd guess posting here should help, too! (I'm assuming folk happy with closing AfDs watch here...?!) TFOWRpropaganda 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it's just been closed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. AFD in question closed. For future reference, all you have to do is say that you withdraw in the AFD and/or strike your nomination statement. You can also close the discussion yourself if you know how. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it. That would have been a waste of time. Will go and clean up the article instead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Early close?

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero, None Of The Above the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet and the other arguments are now all for merging. I would do it myself but I've !voted. I will do the merging if someone else will rubberstamp the speedy keep. Fences&Windows 17:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done (non-admin closure). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Merge done. Fences&Windows 19:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qassim Afzal (2nd nomination)

Could someone help me list this properly? I followed the steps 1-3 but it's not showing up in the AFD list. Valenciano (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I told you this before...it's there under "Renpin" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 29 but there is no section header because you did not do step II correctly. Xenon54 (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You did. I tried to fix it but couldn't, hence why I'm asking again. Valenciano (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I think I got it fixed. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FALSE AND OFFENSIVE CONTENT!!!!

How the hell can you let such crap be published???? You a-holes!!! What if I publish that Wikipedia are a bunch of stupid greedy people who presume to know everything, but are mainly bullshitting???? You don't understand what I'm talking about?? This asticle is what I'm talking about!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

YOUR ASS IS SO GETTING SUED!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.9.211 (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a case of vandalism that somehow slipped through. I've fixed it. Hut 8.5 09:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems like quite a bit of IP vandalism there lately. I've semiprotected. Shimeru (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you do with AfD's that were brought about by sock puppets?

Hello currently there is an AfD open for Love All Over Me. Ther article had been redirected several times but Palmlipbalm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proceeded to open the article multiple times and so to prevent an edit war i nominated for AfD. However it was determined that palmlipbalm is a sock puppet of Brexx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Should the AfD be retracted or should it run its course? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

An AFD can be closed as "speedy keep" if the nominator wants to withdraw it - but only until someone commented on it in good faith. In this case a "keep"-!vote was cast by TBhotch (talk · contribs), so now there is a comment in good faith and the AFD should run its course. Regards SoWhy 20:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If it's a "keep" !vote then the nominator could still withdraw. Only a delete !vote "technically" eliminates the possiblity of an early withdraw and speedy close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

seven c's of communication

i have written this article to provide it to the students of mass communication who find it difficult to seek these seven c's of communication. There is no such violation of the copyright act or grammatical mistakes. i feel this page should not be deleted as this article really can lend a hand of help to the students —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridibbhowmik (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 c of communication, not here. Hut 8.5 21:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD step 2 request

I've inserted {{subst:afd1}} at the top of Steiger Ferris Wheel.

Article was PRODded with the summary "non-notable; unreferenced & notability-tagged since January 2010". Six days later it was blanked and made into a redirect to Ferris wheel by a second editor, however this edit was reverted by a third editor with the summary "undoing redirect—target article contains no mention of this". The second editor then removed the restored PROD tag with the edit summary "remove prod, do not restore prod".

Thanks. 92.1.90.14 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steiger Ferris Wheel. I've done step 3 for you as well. Hut 8.5 20:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. 92.1.90.14 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

and another

Flame (Johnny Duhan album) - all done but step 2. See article talk page for rationale. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done by Ron Ritzman: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flame (Johnny Duhan album). Jujutacular T · C 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

one more

Paddy on the Road - - all done but step 2. See article talk page for rationale. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

two more

Cryptid Hunters and Tentacles (novel), both by the same author with the same rationale for deletion. See either article's talk page. Probably should be listed together, which is why I didn't complete step 3 either. 76.102.25.93 (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid Hunters and listed. Jujutacular T · C 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

I used Twinkle to make a second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dzhambulat_Khatokhov, but it blanked the prior nomination, which is particularly relevant to the current one. I copied the new text, self–reverted, and pasted the new nom at the bottom of the old one. Is that the proper protocol? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to make a new nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dzhambulat Khatokhov (2nd nomination). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs streamlining

This current multistep process is too complex. As a result Wikipedia is quickly turning into a multi subject fan site. It's sickening. 85.77.201.117 (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the articles you are referring to are List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles supporting characters and List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED technology. Can you tell us why you think these articles should be deleted? "This shit doesn't belong to an encyclopedia", which was your PROD rationale, is not a valid reason. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A big honking OOPS

Today while doing my closes and relists on the closable log, this AFD was next on the list. I reviewed the nomination rationale, saw that the consensus was to "keep" and closed it "keep". There was just one little detail I missed...

I WAS THE DAMN NOMINATOR!!!

Actually, I did it on behalf of an IP editor. Since I was neutral I decided to leave it closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Endorse close as made. And you're forgiven for the oops as far as I'm concerned, though it does highlight the issues when someone bounces back and forth between a !voter, a nominator, and a closer. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering

When did the name of this page change from VfD to AfD? T3h 1337 b0y 01:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

3:17 GMT on 1 September 2005. Here is the last edit to VfD, made one minute before the move. The logs are still preserved as well, although the directions template at the bottom is transcluded and therefore looks like it does now, rather than then. (This is going to date me really badly, but I actually remember VfD and Deletion reform, although I didn't participate in either...) Xenon54 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

interwiki..

Please add ko:위키백과:삭제 토론 interwiki. Thanks. Tsuchiya Hikaru (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done this for you, Tsuchiya Hikaru. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominating for redirect

Is it okay to start an AFD with the explicit expectation of desiring a redirect? I seem to remember this going both ways, with nominations sometimes getting speedy closed as the wrong venue for such a discussion. The current case I was considering: I created the redirect Nataly Dawn to Pomplamoose. Recently, an IP created an article over it. I subsequently undid the creation and explained why on the talk page. This was undone. I have no desire to engage in an edit war, so... is an AFD appropriate? Jujutacular T · C 05:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree withe the redirect as per WP:BAND and have reverted the IP's action. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No. AFD is specifically to empower use of the deletion function. Redirection is performed by ordinary editing and, per our deletion policy, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Please see dispute resolution for the processes to be used when you disagree with other editor(s). Colonel Warden (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

For BLPs where notability is unclear then I would say that AFD is the right venue for that discussion, only because I can't think of a better one. For albums and songs of otherwise notable musicians and fictional characters of otherwise notable works of fiction, I would be happy if redirect and merge discussions stayed on article talk pages and in wikiprojects and only coming to AFD if there are WP:V or WP:CRYSTAL issues. However, I know that's not going to happen. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

BOT for project notification of AfD ?

Hi

Might be a dumb question lol but is there a bot which can/does update a project page with AfD notification when an article is put up for deletion ?

As notification is automatically put onto the creator page I assume this would be easy if there is not one ? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves from namespace

Is WP:RM or WP:AFD or some other venue the correct place for a request to move an article from the namespace to another space, e.g. project space?
Context: I just removed a requested move at Talk:Wikipedia in culture#Requested move that wanted Wikipedia in culture moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in culture as I thought this fell out of the scope of requested moves (as it is a requested removal), but then I read the closing admin's comments at the last AfD in 2008, which said that "A proposal to move this in to the Wikipedia namespace should be carried through the normal move decision making process, as I don't see a clear consensus for such a move at the moment." So... what's the process?

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Requested moves from namespace to keep in one place. Fences&Windows 22:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD step 2 request

Saul Farber - as usual, deletion rationale can be found on the article talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done VernoWhitney (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Twinkle has played up and created two nominations to delete No Love (Eminem song) even though I only intended creating one report. How can we put the situation right? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

dumbcountingbot

Hi

Cna anyone explain what is going on with this count ?

AfD = Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palaeoarchaeology Count = [14]

You can clearly see that as of right now there are 1 for delete and 3 for keep. The toolserver page has 5 votes, instead of 4, and has counted one user twice even though he tried striking out the word "Delete" and then redacted it it still has him in "delete" and in "keep"

Its not the first time this has happened - anyone know why it's doing it or how to fix it ? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


It also should note "double votes" as a rule -- turns out that if a nom then !votes, he gets counted as two !votes <g>. Collect (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly delete Social networking spam

Hello. I'm not exactly sure of the process for proposing articles for deletion and I decided it would probably be best to ask if someone would please help out and propose it for me (Assuming it warrants deletion.).

Social networking spam is IMO a pretty pointless article that could be merged into a more general Spam article. There doesn't appear to be anyone really taking interest in it and half the content is made up of a Social Engineering Attack that doesn't even appear to be terribly notable.

Thanks. Bios Element (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlooked AFD?

I've just stumbled back on this old AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land ownership in the Marshall Islands. I've noticed that it hasn't been edited since 19th June (by me I admit) and is way overdue for closure so can this be adressed? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

use of voting symbols in AFDs

Per long consensus en does not allow the use of voting symbols to displace discussion but I'm increasingly seeing them in AFDs. Is there a view on whether or not we should remove them? Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep them out, but I looked at today's log and yesterday's and didn't see a single one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, maybe it was just a flash in the pan from the open afds from the log I just worked through? Spartaz Humbug! 07:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You may as well remove them when you see them, but I haven't noticed any recently. --erachima talk 07:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_59&oldid=1140425031"