Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page.
Archives: 1, 2
Shortcut:
WT:AFD
Archive
Archives

Renamed Articles for deletion about this time.



Contents

[edit] AFD-BYRDIE GREEN

I am the youngest daughter of the above referenced artist and know for a fact that she did indeed record for Prestige Records. She also recorded on the Polydor and Polygram Label. Ms Green also recorded a Christmas 45 on a label she started entitled Penda Mungu Enterprises.

Please do not delete any info on my mother. I added some comments to her main page, just so as to give more information on her. If I handled it wrong, I am sorry. I just wanted to let people know of her passing.

Dharbee (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Dharbee

Talk about deleting this article is done on the articles Afd page here. SunCreator (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for your loss and you didn't do anything wrong. One of the reasons why we advise not to write about close ones is the possible distress it can cause when the article gets changed, proposed for deletion or actually deleted.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using a redirect as a method of deletion.

Folks, please look at this edit to the Divine Science article. This was not a merge, and the target article, New Thought, only mentions Church of Divine Science in passing, so there certainly was no duplication. The end result was that Divine Science was deleted. My understanding is that this sort of delete=thru=redirect manuever is not allowed, but I wanted to run it by you all here. Let me know, Madman (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have restored the article and added a couple of references.

Here's another delete=thru=redirect manuever by our miscreant. He slapped it with {{notability}} + {{unreferenced}} tag on Feb 19 and deleted (er, redirected) it March 4. I myself am not sure the article had notability, but doesn't one have to nominate the article first? Madman (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirects are not deletions in the narrow sense that we use those terms here. Deletions remove the pagehistory. Deletions can not be undone without the use of special admin tools. Redirects, on the other hand, are ordinary-editor actions. They leave the pagehistory intact. Any future editor can review the prior versions in the pagehistory and can merge content back out as appropriate. Likewise, any editor can revert a decision to redirect without the need for special admin tools. So, no. Your assertion that redirect = deletion is untrue. This dispute needs to be sorted out on the respective article Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that a redirect is not a deletion, thankfully in this case because I was able to recover the article. But it appears to me that that this sort of manuever is something of a mis-use of a redirect that has the effect of (at least temporarily) deleting the article. Madman (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Madman: Hard as it is to see sometime, Hrafn is honestly trying to improve WP by keeping unsourced and poorly cited articles offline. Yes, Hrafn's civility sometimes leaves much to be desired (too many angry!! outbursts) but I do believe his heart is in WP's best interests. Likewise I think you too are trying to improve the WP and add worthwhile content but you too need to be more careful on the matter of civility in your speech (like calling him a "miscreant" above). The discussions between the two of you are beginning to escalate and sooner or later one or both of you will get banned if you folks cannot control your sniping and shouting. Both of you need to cool off, dial the pissing contest back a bit, and look for meaningful -- non judgmental -- questions that will lead to productive discussions.

As an example please note the next subsection of this thread... -- Low Sea (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rephrasing the question

I know and respect both of these editors (Hrafn & Madman) so I am trying to remain neutral as much as possible. I think the issue needs to be rephrased in terminology... Lets try this question:

Is it acceptable Wikipedia practice to take a stub or start level article created by multiple editors and blank the page except for a redirect without moving/merging the content into the redirect target page?

Please provided wikilinks to support your response either way. -- Low Sea (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 dealt with something like that, although the redirects were enforced with edit warring. Resulted in a sort of topic ban. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Where the start-article/stub is unsourced, or sufficiently poorly sourced as not to meet WP:NOTE, it is clearly envisioned, both in template:notability and WP:GAFD, that redirection is an option. Where the content is unsourced or unreliably sourced, WP:V would forbid "moving/merging the content into the redirect target page". HrafnTalkStalk 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but only if it fails inclusion criteria, a viable redirect target exists, and the content isn't useful in the target page. But a redirect preserves the history, so content can be merged somewhere whenever someone has the time to do it. You'd still need sources and such on merged content, of course. Hope this helps. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is clear importance (not notability!) of a topic such that it warrents being a search term (and with importance to be interpreted broadly), then we should never remove coverage of it; it is just that its coverage is likely part of the content of a larger article if notability isn't established. So when a stub/start is redirected, there should be some information on that stub/start page put into the article it is redirected to. But it is not required that all the information on that page should remain; what may have been 5 paragraphs in the stub could be reduced to 1 sentence in the target article, but as long as the topic coverage is still there, that redirect is appropriate. There's also cases where the topic is already covered to a degree in the main article, so moving the content from the stub/start to that is not necessary. --MASEM 14:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a widely done practice, so it is hard to say whether or not it is accepted. but I think in general is should not be accepted, except when the total uselessness of the article is manifest. It's a misapplication of BRD, which should not be used in a controversial situation to perform major edits. i think it is always disruptive when done to an established article without prior consensus. If one asserts it is unsourced or whatever, fine, that may be a reason for merging, but one should get consensus on that first. But there is at present no rule against it, and many editors here seem to think it falls within the permitted behavior under WP:BRD. We need some way of handling this, and we do not have one. All that can be done at present is to follow the second step of BRD, and revert, and to insist on further discussion. Someone who reverses such a revert without discussion is in my opinion behaving in an uncooperative manner. I regard it as a gross breech of editing practice, and a sign that perhaps one is trying to accomplish by pressure what would not actually have consensus. We should stop tolerating it. DGG (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly we have a way of handling it and you just described it. If you disagree with a bold decision to change a page into a redirect, revert it and clearly explain your reasoning then let discussion sort out the issue on the article's Talk page. Incivil editing is a problem but there is nothing special about this particular version of editorial dispute.
And again, the core point for this discussion is that regardless of the civility of the edit (or lack thereof), it's not a deletion. The normal editing process handles this kind of dispute. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish you were right. BRD works fine when everyone involved plays by not just the formal rules, but shows courtesy and a spirit of trying to reach a true consensus. The normal editing process unfortunately does not handle this kind of dispute very well. the reason AfDs get used instead is because they at least lead to a result by a established process with an established way of challenge. Not that the result is necessarily very consistent, but it does give a decision. There is no way of reaching a decision about the content of an article if people do not want to compromise. DGG (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banjo-Kazooie: Sky's the Limit

My article I created has been put up in the articles for deletion. I agree that it should be deleted. It is un-notable and is only a rumor. If more info comes in on the rareware website though then i will re-create the page. But for now that's going to be a wait!!!--Anfish (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Breegulls

Many people search for this concept. Also i think that many people should know that it doesn't really exist. Also It can be a lot more better. I think a different tag should be put on suggesting to make the page longer. Like the tag that says the article is extremely short. It can be a lot better and I know it. I just need the help of other contributers. I know it wasn't you that put it up for the articles of deletion but I think doing this is a mistake. Normally i would not acked this way. Normally I am fine when my page is deleted. I think that this article is a lot better than most other articles that i create. Also i think that many people want to know farther what a "breegull" is. I really it be tooken off of the articles of deletion. Almost everyone that I know wanted to know more about breeguls. Me too!! I wanted to see what a real breegull looked like. then after farther research I realized that It was only a creature in the Banjo-Kazooie and Viva Pinata universe. So i searched it here on Wikipedia. I figured out know such page existed so I decided to create the page for the better of Wikipedia. I highly suggest the tage be tooken off by and admin. Thank You.--Anfish (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your message may be better suited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breegulls, but anyway, the article is currently just a dictionary definition (which wikipedia is not) combined with information that is already present in another article. It is extremely doubtful that secondary sources exist in significant numbers to make a proper article out of this. You may also be interested in learning about redirects, which leave the term "breegulls" searchable. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a dictionary definition. I can fix this if you told me how. I still don't think it is necessary to delete. It has enough info. It tells people about what a breegull is. I can even give a description of what it looks like. i need answers. The only thing i don't want happening is for it to be deleted in less it is a good purpose. I can add as much as you want but I just want it to not be deleted. In less for a good reason. If it is a dictionary definition than I will change it. In my opinion if an article can be fixed than it should be able to stay undeleted and be discussed. Other than saying it's trash and then . . . well . . . trash it.--Anfish (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japan related content

Hello. I have recently started a GFDL project japanwiki.org and I would appreciate it if, any articles about Japan that are marked to be deleted, be given to us. Is there an easy way to do that or does somebody have to manualy create the article in japanwiki.org ? Many thanks in advance. Jubeidono (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan should already have them listed. Prods need to get listed manually, but there are a number of people who work at sorting AfDs, so 99% of them should show up there within a day or two of listing.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fish Lake Valley

Hi. What is the difference between this Fish Lake Valley and this one Fish Lake Valley, Nevada ? Confused. 88.207.139.239 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The first one is a redirect to the second one. The redirect was created as we don't need two articles on the same subject.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's true as of 12:57, May 20, 2008. At the time of 88's query, the first was a separate article, which may explain his/her confusion. Jakew (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What i thought, THX. Gary Dee 08:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.139.239 (talk)

[edit] Standardizing the organization of admin instructions

I've made a proposal for standardizing the location of administrator instructions for processes like AfD. Feel free to join the discussion. Here is an example of how it could be implemented (link in top right corner). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD dates

In regards to the bar at the top of the deletion log that provides links to the days either side of the given log, I can't help but think that a smattering of common sense in duplicating it at the bottom of the page would make navigating between days just that little bit easier. Any thoughts? WilliamH (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Pinged LDBot about it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Various suggestions

There are serious flaws in AfD and so I propose the following:

  • 1. Greater emphasis needs to be on AfD being a discussion and not a vote. A list of keeps and deletes looks like a vote just like the supports and opposes in an RfA. We might say it's a discussion, but a discussion means actual interaction among participants. Few AfDs actually look like a discussion. In fact, some editors are even offended when someone responds to their "vote" in an AfD. Moreover, many just post a quick "per nom" or something and then move on never to return to the AfD to see if the nominator was later refuted or if the article was improved during the course of the so-called discussion. We need to therefore either outright say on the top of each AfD that it is a discussion and not a list of votes and that editors are encouraged to actually interact with each other or just do away with the bold keeps and deletes currently practiced. A discussion would be a threaded list of replies that reaches some sort of conclusion, not a list of deletes per x with some keeps worked in.
  • 2. The five day thing is a bit odd on something that does not have a deadline. In obvious cases of libel, copyvios, and hoaxes, okay, but we need to remember that the internet is not the only means of finding reliable sources. Not all published books appear in their entirety on Google books, just as not all magazines and journals have online archives or for that matters archives found on Google searches. As a graduate student, we have access to password protected archives that included scholarly references others would not find by doing a simple Google search. I have participated in a number of AfDs in which the nominator asserts no sources to be found and is followed by a handful of "per noms" and yet I check published sources or password protective archives that allow for the articles in question to be saved. Given enough time I think most of the articles I have ever argued to be kept could indeed be eventually properly sourced, but again, given time. In other words, it sometimes takes a bit more than five days to actually exhaust all likely sources and volunteers need not be arbitrarily rushed on something without a deadline so long as some evidence of potential has been established. Another problem with the five day thing is that sometimes articles are nominated mere minutes after being created. Check out this unsourced article when it was created versus now. Imagine if someone nominated it for deletion saying, "Hey, the creator should have added the sources before creating the article." It takes time to develop even some of the most notable articles. And the fact is the longer potentially valid articles hang aroun, the greater likelihood they'll eventually be in fact improved.
  • 3. In addition to deletion review, we need an Articles for restoration to counterbalance AfD and deal with scenarios in which the closure may have been in order, but new sources or whatever have turned up and instead of having to start all over, those who found the sources can request the article be restored and then revised accordingly. Some who have no problems renominating articles multiple times for deletion come up with a "DRV is not AfD 2" non-argument when AfDs are challenged there, so we need an Articles for restoration as well. Also, an Articles for restoration sounds less challenging to admins who closed the AfDs then Deletion review.
  • 4. Nominators and those arguing to delete must make a serious effort to see if sources can be found and if the article can likely be improved before nominating or just "voting" to delete an article that is of a nature they simply do not like. We could maybe even have a category of editors who take note of accounts that just go down the list of AfDs making rapid "per noms" or other "votes" rather than arguments (I have seen some with say ten or more AfDs in ten or less minutes; I can speed read and type over a hundred words a minute, but still!) and who then note that within the relevant AfDs so the closing admin realizes that it is unlikely these accounts could have actually read the article, read all the comments above them, and then checked for his or herself whether or not sources exist. It is not assuming bad faith if the nominator and others assert sources don't exist, but to see for yourself if that claim is true, because again, I have been in enough AfDs for which sources allegedly cannot be found only to find them and have the AfD close as a resounding keep.
  • 5. In order to evaluate true consensus, the closing admin should take into account how many editors have also been working on the article in question, but who may have missed the five day AfD for whatever reason, i.e. if say only a half dozen or less people say delete in an AfD, but scores of good faith editors having been working to improve the article under question, then perhaps the AfD does not reflect the actual community's consensus on the value of the article to our project. Moreover, if even a couple good faith or established editors argue to keep the article, then serious consideration should be made for a no consensus closure as it is important that we do not insult our contributors, readers, and donors by deleting articles that out of thousands of editors, readers, and donors, only a handful happen to want to delete in an AfD that lasts but a few days.
  • 6. The admin closer should take note of not just the discussion in its entirety, but what direction it was headed in. If say the last post from someone is a question, then instead of closing because five days are up, keep it open to say how others respond to that question. If say the first half or even two-thirds of the AfD is overwhelmingly to delete, but in the last couple of arguments editors have indeed improved the article under consideration and now maybe even those who argued to delete are starting to switch to keep, it should not be closed as delete.
  • 7. Admins should also be aware of accounts that are unwilling to ever argue to keep. People seem to consider me a strong inclusionist, but if you look at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, you'll see that I have argued to and even nominated to delete over two dozens articles. I have by contrast encountered some accounts who NEVER have argued to keep or who have even outright said they would never argue to do so. While I am not calling for any kind of quotas here, such bias and closed-mindedness should be indicated to closing admins so they know if those accounts' "arguments" should be discounted as "well, this account only argues to delete, so...".
  • 8. Any AfD nominated by an account determined to be a sock of a banned user cannot result in deletion unless it is an obvious hoax, copy vio, or libel and if such an AfD was deleted, it must be overturned with no prejudice against a non-sock account creating a new AfD. The bottom line is articles of even questionable inclusion value nominated in bad faith by sock accounts cannot be allowed to stand, because if they do, then we are in effect allowing the banned editor to "win."
  • 9. AfDs cannot end on questions, i.e. if the final comment in an AfD is a question from one of the participants, especially if it's the nominator, instead of closing the AfD, the discussion should continue to see if others degree and if perhaps the discussion might go in a different direction. Sometimes someone might have a brilliant last minute idea that completely changes the whole discussion. Therefore, even if there's ten or so preceding comments one way, in order to reach a real and legitimate consensus, we need to take into account additional ideas. Per Ignore All Rules anyway, we should not stop a discussion just because five days are up when it might shift directions one way or another.
  • 10. In the case of renominations of articles, ALL editors who participated in the previous discussion(s) must be notified of the new AfD in order to again more correctly determine if in fact consensus has or has not changed. If those who argued one way previously now argue differently, then we can see a factually verifiable change in direction, but if no one from the previous AfD(s) comments in the new one and the new AfD only has a handful of participants it can logically be assumed that it some reflects a major shift in consensus that justifies deleting untold hours of work, especially if those who did argue one way or another in the previous AfD find the new one closed just as they're about to comment.
  • 11. If a valid redirect location exists and the article in question is not a hoax, libel, or copy vio, then the article must be redirected and cannot be deleted.
  • 12. Subjective terms "cruft", "unencyclopedic," "non-notable," and "indiscriminate" shall be forbidden from use in AfDs, along with "per nom". Imagine having a discussion in real life and someone saying "per nom"! I have been to enough college meetings to know that scholars do not use nonsense terms like "cruft." The other three terms are just too subjective to have merit.
  • 13. Every editor who worked on an article nominated for deletion must be notified on thier talk pages of the AfD in progress in order to reach a legitimate consensus.
  • 14. "Notability is not inherited" can no longer be used in AfDs.
  • 15. Lists, including "in popular culture" and video games weapons, are perfectly acceptable as almanacic and encyclopedic content as determined by the broader community, i.e. the thousands of editors who create and work on them in good faith and the millions of readers who come here for these articles. A half dozen or so of usually the same editors in an five day AfD CANNOT be allowed to trump that reality just because a minority of our community does not like these things.
  • 16. Too much focus seems to be on what Wikipedia is not, rather than what Wikipedia is. This time and energy needs to be on building articles rather than destroying them.
  • 17. Any article that is backed up by reliable sources is notable enough for inclusion, including family members of famous people.
  • 18. Any aspect of a video game (weapon or character) that appears in other media or even as toys or replicas is sufficiently notable for inclusion.

Anyway, just some ideas (I probably have a lot more, but the above are some key concerns). Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On #2, I've already opened a suggestion of postponing deletion if there is valid concern that the editors have not given notice that the article needs to be improved to meet WP standards, giving them four weeks to correct the issue. Mind you, if there's been a notability tag on an article for several months and the article is brought to AFD, it's a little late to be asking for more time to fix it.
On #3, we have that in the sense that any editor can ask for an admin to restore it to userspace without having to go through much rigmarole. Once the article has been shown to have sources through userspace, then a DRV can be reopened, or a similar admin request to bring the article back (of course, if we are redirecting, this is all moot, more on that in a bit).
On #4, it is up to those wanting to keep the article to provide sources if notability is questioned. That is not to say that a fair practice is to have those wanting to delete to try to search for sources, however, we cannot force this. That is to say a !vote of "Delete: I've tried looking for sources but found none" is a much better !vote of "Delete: not notable per nom"
#5 sorta lines up with #2, though I think it is common that if just prior or during the AFD there are appropriate improvements to satisfy the reason for deletion, keep, no consensus or the proposed "postponed" would all be appropriate.
#6 probably points to the fact that we should have at minimum 5 days for discussion, at most 24 hours from any significant issue raised if the discussion hasn't closed yet, at the closing admin disscretion (if the issue raised is significant enough).
I would strongly suggest avoiding #7, as you are now bringing in the editor's background into the picture. Yes, there are people that only !vote delete, but if they are only !voting delete "per nom" or other reason, that's not a strong argument. If they constant !vote delete but always bring appropriate arguments to the table, there is no reason to question their background.
I will say a lot of this, I think, can be mitigated by trying to make sure that AFDs that are intended to result in redirects and merges (as tends to be the case for many topics that lack notability), we should be speedily closing and requesting a more formal merge process, as there is no need to waste the time over deletion. AFDs should only be used to delete (as in , remove the article and edit history) articles that cannot be covered elsewhere either due to other policies/guidelines, or the like. Mind you, there are cases where I am sure the AFD nom feels deletion is right, but the end result may be a merge that the nominator wasn't aware of, so that's still valid. But, really, the imparative word of this process is "deletion", and thus we should not be clogging it with how to deal with certain content that should be covered, but only leave it for content who's appropriateness for coverage in WP is in question. (I'm almost thinking we need a more former AFMerge process for these situations). --MASEM 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with using merge, and editing to redirect, is that they do not get general attention like AfD does. It is therefore very much easier for people with an agenda or POV to either prevent desirable changes, or to force them, depending on the relative strengths of the forces at hand. The recent and continuing arb coms show this--some one can carry out dozens of redirects that take us months to deal with properly and much drama. No one can push that unfairly without discussion at Afd. How often do people actually may attention to WP:RM? and to WP:PM? I look once in a while, but I'm not sure why, for I think very few of the actual moves and merges get listed here. we need some centralized way or reviewing this, and AfD is all we really have to prevent extravagant views in one direction or another to be seen and judged by the community. sure we could organize things better, but until we do, AfD is what we have. It's the only effective policy page in all of WP. DGG (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why I think if we made it a more formal process, handled in the same fashion for AFD, there would be a better likelihood of getting more eyes on it. Right now, if you want to suggest a merge, it does not appear in any global list as AFDs do. I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is a possible one to consider to defuse the number of AFDs that are initiated that really should be merge requests. --MASEM 04:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm being far too simplistic, but can we add a "contested=yes" parameter to {{merge}}, etc., which automatically adds the page to a "contested merges" category? That would at least facilitate wider participation in contested cases, which is a start. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
8, recently added, is probably a bad idea. Even if a banned user nominates an AfD in violation of his/her ban, someone else may have brought up a valid reason to delete and the consensus might go that way regardless. Perhaps for such noms the nom him/herself can be ignored and all "per nom" !votes as well, but this shouldn't mean that the AfD overall doesn't count.
9 and 10, also recently added, aren't bad ideas per se, but it's probably not a good idea to require it. A suggestion somewhere in WP:AFD should do. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that in many instances the AfDs nominated by banned users are pointed nominations and so need to be discounted or overturned. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, they shouldn't be automatically overturned simply because of this. Perhaps automatically reviewed, to check if consensus is the same, but overturning could fly in the face of the consensus of the AfD even after these comments are ignored. And it also leaves out the instances where banned users and socks actually bring up good points. And it leaves out instances where users are banned later for completely unrelated events. And probably a few others. #8 is not a good idea. Perhaps a more moderate version, automatically sending them to DRV to check for new consensus or something similar could work, but not auto-overturning. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
11, "must" is too strong a word because there are times that , while content is merged, the article name is not a reasonable search term (this is the exception, not the norm); for example, if "List of sub-category of category of A" is merged to "List of category of A", then the article name is not appropriate, and a history merge should be done if needed. But in all other cases, even with a reasonable chance of being a search term, redirects should be used.
12, strong disagree. Each of those words has a meaning specific to Wikipedia in the context of article deletion debates, and while inclusionists may see them as bad, they serve the same purpose as citing exists essays, guidelines, and policy via their shortcut, to avoid reiterating arguments over and over. "Per noms" are useful if the nominator's reasoning is fully spelled out and you can't improve on that; however, if the nominator's reasoning is not strong, and among a bunch of "per noms" !votes there's a handful of contrary positions, the closing admin should take that in mind and likely favor the contrary view. Same with reusing the words above: if all those that want to delete an article simply say "cruft" without addition context, while a few keepers explain out in detail, those "cruft" !votes should carry less weight than the keep votes. --MASEM 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with "per noms" are that a lot of times, accounts that I have correctly identified as socks when taken to checkuser or taken to arbcom just go down the list of AfDs with "Delete per noms" sometimes in multiple AfDs in under a minute. I have even encountered some accounts who outright stated they would "never argue to keep". You all know that I am an inclusionist, but I have even nominated several articles for deletion and have argued to delete over two dozen articles. And while also working on welcoming new users, improving random articles, rescuing articles, uploading images, etc. If we have single-purpose deletion accounts that ONLY focus on AfDs, then they odds seem stacked in the favor of biased deletion and so someone should notice if a per nom is from an account that say just made a slew of per noms in multiple AfDs. "Cruft" is just an insulting word. Someone can say, "I do not believe the article you created meets our inclusion criteria and therefore believe it should be deleted," without saying "Dude, you created cruft, it has to go! Lol!" Okay, well, my example has alliteration, so maybe it is a little more poetic than when it is usually used, but my point is that it's just needlessly harsh. "Cruft" even looks close to "crap," and so again is unnecessarily hostile. But getting back to the per noms; if the nomination rationale is so compellingly worded then it really does not need a per nom or to. If AfD is a discussion and the nomination is followed by a "Keep", then instead of tossing a "Delete per nom" after the keep, why not respond to the keep and engage that editor to allow for an actual discussion or dialogue? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, if there are SPA or socks that only "per nom" every AFD, that's a behavior problem to bring up, and we have mechanisms to deal with that that are outside AFD; if you take such abuse out of the picture, AFD works as it is expect to. Thus, there's no need to chance the process since we have processes in place to deal with abuse in general. --MASEM 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But unfortunately AfD fails rather frequently (consider all the Deletion reviews and renominations) and so an article can be deleted or kept one week because a certain group of editors participated in that discussion, but have a completely different result even days later when different editors discuss it. Thus, this five day thing in which usually (obviously something like the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD is an exception) an incredibly small number of editors comment and especially when some of those accounts only comment in AfDs and usually only to delete articles, just cannot seriously be taken as a true reflection of actual community consensus. Even suspected hoaxes in AfD started out as a likely snowball delete, but wound up being kept when all of a sudden someone turned up with sources to show that it wasn't a hoax. Take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis, even I thought it was one to delete after my search for sources didn't turn up much, but what if it had been speedy deleted as a hoax? Notice as well, that I at least was willing to change my stance based on the subsequent discussion. How many AfDs in which sources are found those who slapped a per nom early on never return to acknowledge the new sources or comments? For a project in which we have no deadline and which AfDs are unquestionably gamed by sock accounts or flooded by single-purpose deletion only accounts, the process is just too flawed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The socks/SPA thing is something to be dealt with at WP:AN. As for the five day thing, again, I point out the suggestion of postponing the AFD process when editors request it to get over that 5 day issue, extending it to 4 weeks to improve an article. There is no deadline, but we also want editors to be bold, and we need to have processes in place to balance these two extremes. --MASEM 19:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most DRVs are about speedies and often from new users in my experience. There are few DRVs where people disagree with a closure, and even then they are often opened for bunk reasons (to put it bluntly). And also quite a few happen because the deleting admin was not contacted and asked about the deletion. Most deletions are endorsed in my experience, so I doubt that the number of DRVs shows a problem with the AfD, PROD, or speedy processes. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with much of #12, Grand Roi, you'll get a strong disagreement from me on "not-notable". You and I have butted heads on this concept in the past, but I think you'll agree that your view that notability isn't needed to have an article on wikipedia is a minority one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the majority of Wikipedia are those who write and work on these articles who therefore believe them notable enough for inclusion. If an article had hundreds of edits made in good faith, but a handful of editors in one randomly made five day AfD suddenly claim "non-notable", then we do not necessarily have an actual reflection of consensus, especially when I have encountered a number of accounts, a good deal of which are now ideffed as socks, who do nothing more than "vote" to delete articles, so we also have a large number of AfDs flooded by such accounts which also have an inaccurate reflection of consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But forbidding the use of "non-notable" also excludes its use from pages of the type "This band is 4 friends who will release a demo as soon as we learn how to play an instrument", or the author who has self-published two books of bad poetry and decided to write his/her own wikipedia article. If you ban the word, you also preclude discussion of the concept. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe an alternative would be to better educate editors on the meaning and use of the word? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd gladly join you in that uphill battle. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
These are all great suggestions. I have often wondered myself why AFD is beginning to look just like a majority vote, contrary to what policy states. AFD has some major problems which need to be dealt with. Thanks, Le Grand Roi. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC).
we won't get rid of "non-notable" till we get rid of "notable" -- but I have some thoughts in that direction -- we need a real set of criteria of what should & should not be in the encyclopedia instead of the contradictions between N and NOT and V and RS. True, it will make obsolete whatever skill I have in using whatever argument gets a reasonable result, & it will probably end in a compromise that I don't really like in all respects--but then nobody can expect to have things always their way, though a lot of people keep trying. The main improvement AfD needs is to have fewer of them, not to fight each one through on first principles. DGG (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The big joke about AFD is that articles are not, in fact, deleted; they are just flagged so that only privileged editors can see them. This introduces an element of natural bias since the closing admin will feel no sense of loss, since he will still be able to access the article. The D in AFD really stands for Deprecation or Depreciation which more accurately describes the process. If this were better known, I fancy that there would be less thrill of the chase, which seems to drive much of the activity. Perhaps we should move this page to Articles for Deprecation to make this more clear? Colonel Warden (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

::wild optimism. unfortunately. A considerable number of admins will delete on their only single handed say so without waiting for previous tagging. A somewhat smaller number give the impression they delete anything that's tagged. Right, its not the majority of the deletions, but 10% of so of 1000 articles a day, with half of the authors never contributing again, is about 300 or 400 new people a week lost to wikipediaDGG (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, currently there is no way to eliminate or reduce the number of frivolous Afd nominations taking place more and more. Let’s look at the facts: Any editor, at any time for any reason can nominate a piece for the Afd process. It makes no difference if that editor has 1 hour – 1 day – or 1 year at Wikipedia. Likewise, as we have all seen, it does not even require the nominating editor to do a minimal search to qualify their contentions of why they are nominating the article for deletion. The only way we could even start to rid ourselves of some of these types of proposals is to begin to institute metrics into the process as recommended by DGG above. However, once we start definitively defining what one has to do before nominating – what that nominating editor must include in his/her write-up/reason of why they nominated and finally what is the penalty/consequences of misrepresenting the nominations, we are stuck with the current product, Afd, as it now stands. Sorry ShoesssS Talk 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem I have with your suggestions is that it makes it more trouble than it's worth to get rid of articles that should be deleted. For example, say we have a politician with a near fanatical group of supporters who believe conventional new outlets are conspiring against them and that Wikipedia should be their tool to show the world The Truth about their leader. As such, they begin making article after article about the politician, on every aspect of his career, family, activities, and even supporters. While the politician himself is notable, many of these extra articles are crufty and suffer from recentism. When nomed for deletion, his supporters happily cite dozens of reliable blog entries and tangentially related articles from local newspapers to prove notability and bloat the article up to prove "improvement" and save the article. As it stands, the only way these beasts of articles can be deleted is by editors shouting Non-Notable, Cruft and other epithets until the AFD closes. Under your system, should we suffer this subversion of the encyclopedia or do you have a way to deal with this? Burzmali (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Under our current system – the explanation you just provided – is the actuality of today’s process for Afd. In our current situation, consensus is the driving factor, without regards to notability – variability – credibility or independent sources, but rather who makes the better argument and/or is more persistent in pushing their viewpoint and able to drown out any opposition. On the other hand, I see articles, which I personally believe deserve a place here at Wikipedia deleted because of the cry of a number of editors “That does not meet my Notability standards” or “That article was not mentioned in the New York Times” or my favorite “That publication is not creditable in my eyes”. My suggestion was that we start putting minimum standards on what defines Notability. Say three, or we could make it any number, but make it a definitive number, cites from reputable sources. Thus making for Notability. Likewise, let’s set specific minimum standards on what is a trustworthy source. A good start would be what news outlets that are currently included in Google News and Google Scholar are considered dependable without question. Again, without specific metrics, we will never improve the Afd process. In that the process depends on individual interpretation of vague policy and guidelines, and let’s not forget IAR, rather than explicit rules and minimum requirements. Regarding how to enforce these standards is a different question. A clearing house for all Afd nominations? A punitive measure against an editor that nominates 3 articles for Afd without checking for the minimum standards first? Say a 24 hour block? Definitely more work could be involved. However, is it really more work if we are saving time and sanity by restructuring the current system and improving the product in the long-run? Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Presence in an reliable sources isn't usually the problem. Typically, the worst battles are fought over whether or not the coverage is "significant". Burzmali (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you – you took my 1,000 word essay and boiled it down to 10 words! That’s why I’m not a writer :-). You hit the nail right on the head. What is significant for me may not meet your standards. In others a (*&$ contest! ShoesssS Talk 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that usually the argument is significance if notability is brought up in question, but we should consider two cases here. The first case is if the article is brought to AFD for notability issues but no attempt to work with the authors of the page has been made before the AFD. Here, now you're forcing people to show notability within 5 days; in such a case, I would not be worried as much in significance in that there are reliable sources for notability as to then allow the editors more time to work on adding more. (This sorta falls with my postponed AFD suggestion). I know there are editors that say that if you can't find truly significant sourcing in 5 days you're likely not going to find any, but I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt here. On the other hand, if the article has been tagged for notability issues for some time, or this is a repeat visit to AFD for the same, then I would expect that the significance to be the issue: are there enough sources, are they reliable, are they really talking about the work in question? So it's not always clear-cut that significance should be shown, and that's why I feel we need a way to allow "first time offenders" extra time to improve instead of the 5 days given. --MASEM 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Tags that have been present for a Long term are not necessarily taken very seriously, & the Afd can in practice come as a surprise. I think being an editor with an apparent good faith effort to improve and some reasonable possibility that the article might be improvable is sufficient to extend the time. Previous suggestions, going back years, for extending the basic 5 days have been made, and the reasonable objection has always been that most of the articles at AfD dont need any more than that. If we can find away of extending it flexibly, that's an ideal way of dealing with this. DGG (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If tags have been present for a long time, and at the same time there hasn't be a lot of edits to the article from that point, it is a surprise, and again, the benefit of the doubt should be given that 5 days may not be enough time to get notability up to spec. On the other hand, if the article has been tagged lacking notability for a year, and there's been numerous edits since that point including up to the point of AFD, and none addressing the notability issue, then I'm less inclined to give them more time to show it. And not trying to pimp this, but I think the postponed AFD idea I've got should get over many of the issues from past suggestions. --MASEM 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe it is about more time. Rather the point, I keep banging like a drum, is the argument, which is most heard, “…What constitutes Notability ? And what constitutes Significance. Those areas need to be resolved or qualified before any progress can be made. ShoesssS Talk 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, from WP:N: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Granted that's still a bit vague, but I've mostly seen it used to get rid of obviously trivial coverage rather than anything else. One-line and single mentions aren't good enough, but a paragraph might be (depending on where, how long, and how detailed). Whole articles and other works (as long as they're reliable, of course) should pretty well establish notability. I think mostly it's the idea that multiple are needed that's the problem, so that some editors want two articles written about a subject for it to be notable. But I could be completely off. Anyway, cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but as vague as it is, my bigger complaint is that some editors will use dozens of exclusive but trivial (i.e. one line blog entries from reliable sources) to massively inflate an article. If you threaten the article, they just inflate it with statements like "John Smith from the New York Times has commented that his mustache is the greatest in three counties" to prove the notability of a politician's mustache and claim improvement. This creates a significant bias towards recent events, take a look at the articles for the elections in 1980 vs. 2008. Burzmali (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
that's a separate problem. We could and should get equally full coverage from the print sources once people do the work to find them--or once they become accessible online., whichever is the more likely. DGG (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

←Problem is that there are no print equivalents. Thirty years ago newsprint was expensive, so newspapers were forced to think before printing something. Today, any brain fart the newspaper has is just shoved on their "official" blog. Burzmali (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) I think that requires a more nuanced understanding. Dozens of trivial mentions or name drops do not add up to one substantial one, just as fifty lug nuts do not add up to a whole wheel. A substantial piece is of one piece, and while it is not necessary that it focus exclusively on the subject, the subject must be a main focus, not mentioned simply in passing or to provide context for the real subject. Further, notability requires that this source either be exceptionally comprehensive and respected, or, preferably, that there be multiple such sources from which an article may be written. There are other requirements as well, such as that the source must be independent of the subject and must be reliable. This here is why I'm against our latest "villagebot", that promises us millions instead of thousands of garbage, unimprovable stubs this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi, as maybe I've said before in a less-clear fashion: The problems you perceive in the AfD process could be solved by having AfDs administered by more competent admins. Wherever you've pointed out a problem, it's been apparent to me that the closing admin was lazy and didn't pay attention to the value of the various arguments put forth. Also, the problems you perceive could be ameliorated to some extent by lazy voters adding sources and footnotes to the articles they're advocating, instead of just posting links to the AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Interestingly there is a clear bias at RFA against deletionist candidates whereas you actually need to be rabidly inclusionist to the point of losing sight of what the guidelines and policy say before a similar level of opposition crops up on the other side. The real issue is that we don't have a good idea of what should or shouldn't be included and our guidelines and policies contradict themselves in so many ways that for an admin to judge consensus against policy they are effectively required to use their own interpretation of policy to close the debate. Because we have so many different admins closing debates we end up with the result being a lottery rather then a straightforward assessment of the discussion. All the process wonkery and fixing of AFD in the world isn't going to solve that that problem because the problem is bias intrduced by factors external to the AFD process. Unfortuately there is not likely to be any compromise that can be agreeed over our existing unsatisfactory set up. I'd be very interested in any proposals that DGG has to address this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I have encountered a number of deletionist admins (those who are in fact listed in the deletionist category) who do seem to close AfDs in part because of bias against the article, i.e. in cases where the discussions were leaning toward keep or no consensus. My biggest concern with AfDs comes from my job as educator and historian and it is that a lot of what I see is in effect the electronic equivalent of book burning. To suggest that some knowledge is somehow not important is just unacademic and unencyclopedic. I am of course not talking about hoaxes, how tos, libel, copy vios, essays, etc., all of which I think we can agree should be deleted, but I see articles that do have reliable sources deleted under this bizarre idea that only things that pass a handful of editors' ideas of what's notable per an encyclopedic. Now those wanting to delete "in popular culture" articles, fictional characters, video game weapons, television episodes, family members of celebrities and politicians, etc. may think they are doing a good thing and have honest intentions, but the fact is that it is saying some knowledge is unimportant, which goes against everything any scholar and any encyclopedist should stand for. We discriminate against nonsense and lies, but there is no really good, logical, or valid reason why we cannot or should not cover some of these other items that a half dozen odd of the same editors in AfDs want deleted when others in the same AfDs argue to keep, plus maybe hundreds who created and worked on the article, and thousands who come here looking for the article. Some seem to think that Wikipedia will be better maintainable, but so then some just self-appoint themselves as the determiners of what knowledge is worthwhile, which is itself suspect. Some seem to think that if they delete articles that they don't like, then the editors will instead work on articles that the noms and per noms do like, which is naive and wrong. Article creators and contributors whose articles keep getting deleted will just leave the project. If we humor them, maybe they will branch off onto other "more important" articles, but if we keep insulting them authoritatively and paternalistically, they won't. As far as comedians or blogsters whose job is to be sarcastic and critical, who cares what they say about our inclusion of certain topics; after all, some of the sites I can't link to here actually mock us for deletionism. It baffles me as to why anyone would rather devote his or her energy to deleting articles that are not hoaxes, libel, essays, how tos, or copy vios, rather than trying to build up those articles he or she does believe are worthwhile. Imagine how much time spent on AfDs that end in no consensus or keep could have been spent cleaning up an article to bring it to good or featured status or protecting articles from vandalism! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you really get the point I'm making. The problem is that the system encourages personal bias in closing AFDs because there is no objective systemic basis on which to judge our inclusion criteria. The problem will only be resolved if we can come up with a clearer more consistent set of criteria against which content can be judged. This is external to the AFD process and no amount of tinkering is going to change that. The problem is not AFD and admins, it is the inclusion criteria. You appear to want to change the inclusion criteria by tinkering with AFD but that isn'y going to achieve that objective. You would be better off trying to get consensus on a clearer less subjective inclusion criteria if you want to get rid of 'bias' in deletion discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to change some of these policies and guidelines, but the problem is that a vocal minority shouts down any who disagree with them and claim that they represent consensus and typically turn the discussions into ad hominen attacks against those who challenge the notability guidelines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to # 14. ("Notability is not inherited" can no longer be used in AfDs.) -- Oh, please. If this were to be implemented, then every person on the planet will instantly be notable. One of my ancestors was the Queen of France and England, so I could claim to be notable, too. And I assure you that I'm not. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is used for say the spouse of an award winning music artist who directly mention said spouse in notable songs and for whom reliable sources exist and which gets thousands of hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but if reliable sources exist, that shows notability independent of the famous spouse. "Notability is not inherited" wouldn't be a valid AfD argument in that case, so there's no need to ban it. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In a recent discussion, when reliable sources showing notability of the spouse came up, people in the AfD still chanted "notability is not inherited" anyway. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
People use invalid arguments in AfDs all the time. It's an issue to take up with individual editors instead of messing up the AfD process. And if the closing admin gives too much weight to invalid arguments, you are certainly free to question them as well.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have found that if you confront editors in AfDs, even civily, they still get defensive and accuse those challenging them of harassment or other such nonsense. I think we some how need to make it clear on the top of every AfD that it is a discussion in which editors will reply to each other and not just a vote list of keeps and deletes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Numbers 17 and 18 appear to be beyond what this discussion will be capable of doing. You ought to try somewhere else for them. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Per User talk:A Man In Black#Historical note, should we add a header on all AfDs that say something like, "Please remember that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. You should discuss with each other the article's value to Wikipedia and not just make a list of 'deletes' and 'keeps' with one or two word 'rationales'." followed by a link to the Arguments to Avoid Essay? If we did something like that, then it would look all the worse for anyone who posted there that didn't supply an actual reason and that goes for a "keep per nom" as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. We can't be in the business of discouraging editors from participating. Everyone is entitled to their option and can state it how they want. Its simply down to the closing admin to weigh up the arguments against policy and judge the consensus. We already discussed that the problem - such a sit is - is the unclear inclusion criteria and you would be better off trying to fix that before we start tinkering with the AFD process. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not better educate participants as to what are and are not good versus weak arguments? If it's a discussion, then we should not have a bunch of non-discussion advancing "per nom" or one word "nnotable" non-rationales. Also, I actually want MORE people to participate in AfDs. Too many articles for which hundreds of editors have contributed wind up deleted because a half dozen or so in a five day AfD said to do so. I don't see how that can possibly reflect the actual opinion of the community. We need more participation and I think we should require notification of as many editors who worked on article under discussion as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A header on every AfD would just get ignored. The editors you're complaining about have already failed to read the instructions, guidelines and policy pages posted all over the place reminding our participants that these are discussions, not votes.
Education of our editors is important but I can't help thinking that a big part of the problem in this case is the structure of the discussion. The tradition of the bolded "keep" or "delete" at the front of the comment gives the appearance of voting even when that is not the intent. (It also has the unfortunate tendency to encourage our editors to decide the outcome first, then write their rationalization. I would rather they document their evidence and reasoning and lead up to the conclusion. That's how we used to structure the discussion comments. The current format was adopted during a period when the backlog of unclosed discussions was exceptionally long and we were looking for ways to make the closers' job easier. We accomplished the goal but to the detriment of the discussions in my opinion.)
Several alternative layouts for the discussions have been proposed. One of my favorites was the Deletion requests format. (Note: This proposal was made before we were in the habit of independent sub-pages for each discussion. Some of the formatting comments are now obsolete.) Rossami (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the next step is to reopen Wikipedia:Deletion reform and/or Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. Another idea is to allow not only admins, but established editors in good standing to also be able to see deleted articles for the purposes of deletion reviews and RfAs (I'm sure someone can dream up a way that would allow that without also having to include the ability to delete or restore articles). There's this, but it doesn't go back far enough. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New template for x{nd|th} nominations

I've created a template at {{priorxfd}} that may be helpful to link to old discussions if listing a repeat nomination. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD and WikiProjects

What would be good for getting the attention of relevant people is an automated system where a bot looks at the projects on an AFD article's talk page and posts the discussion to a category/list for each project listed. Of course, this would take a little bit of work setting up (making such a bot and getting projects on board), and many articles won't be tagged by any WikiProject (a lot of them are very recent creations), but could still be quite useful, no? Richard001 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps. I think the set of pages they could be listed at by a bot is the subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. GRBerry 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You also need people to watch the deletion sorting pages. I've been delsorting a tremendous number of AfD's, but I'm not convinced all the delsort categories are closely watched. :( If you make a bot request, please make sure the bot also tags the AfD. It's frustrating to read the article, figure out all the categories it should be sorted in and start tagging, only to find someone has posted the AfD to the right delsort page but didn't mark the AfD. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-admins closing deletions - should this be on the AfD page?

First, are non-involved non-admins allowed to close AfDs and Keep or No Consensus? If not, they should be provided they aren't an editor of the articles involved. Encouraging non-admins to patrol old AfDs would free up admins for other tasks.

Second, if they are, I'd like to make this explicit on the AfD page, along with an explicit statement that admins who participate in the AfD or who have either substantially edited the article or recently edit the article should not close expired AfD debates, someone else will be along to close it soon enough.

What do you think? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAC currently has the guidelines for Non-admins closing AFD's.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Just looked, it's actually an Essay, not a guideline, but it seems to be reasonably accepted.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I added it to the "see also" section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
For what its worth, the essay says non-admins should only close when it's nearly unanimous AND when they do not participate in the deletion discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:DGFA already has this: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." I don't think it's necessary to put the same on WP:AfD, since admins who close AfDs should already be familiar with WP:DGFA.
As for non-admin closures, they should probably be avoided except in terrifically obvious cases and speedy keeps. WP:NAC already has all of it down. If you're adamant about wanting non-admins to close debates, we'd probably want to somehow vet people so we don't have vandals going about closing an entire day's worth of logs keep or something like that. It'd be pretty well a pain to keep track of. Generally not a good idea. It'd probably just be easier to get more admins. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm leary of putting this directly on this page, per WP:BEANS; visions of sock hordes not only descending on afds for their pet article en masse but closing the discussions as false snowballs are dancing through my head. Plus, it's already discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, which is both the proper place to look for closing procedure and already linked in the see also section here. —Cryptic 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also prefer not to advertise it directly. The issue is already well-discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (which is actually the guiding text - the essay is an attempt to comment upon the process rules). And, as others have said, anyone wanting to close discussions should already be well familiar with the Deletion Process. The adverse consequences every time we've opened it up too widely are real. The backlog for closures is not that bad. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, non-admin closures by those intending to become admins have sometimes yielded important information--pro or con--at their RfAs--where it can be seen how well they understand both the general rules, and the limitations on roles. DGG (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful template for multi-article AfDs and for suspected sockpuppets

I'm drafting a template, currently at User:Davidwr/quicktable, which will make it easier to list multiple AfDs. It's also useful for arbitrary collapsible information that isn't complex in design, such as a list of suspected single-purpose-account users. It's color-coded for both talk pages and normal pages.

It takes 3 parameters:

  • title=The contents of the title section
  • body=The contents of the hidden section
  • talk - an optional parameter that, if present, will use the talk color scheme

Examples:



Comments? What would be a good name for it? Given that it's a general-purpose template for collapsed items, what template categories should it fit in?

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks great. I'm not sure this is exactly the place to discuss this, since it's so general; there are many uses for this outside of AfDs and such. I'll be putting a longer message on its talk page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Pakistan World

The creator of this article has created the article solely for the purpose of advertising. Although, the article tried to weave into a better text with organic contributions, the author and her associates delete the content and rewrite the article with their point-of-view. Various editors have tried placing a {{advertising}} tag on the page but the author keeps spamming the article content with her POV. The article was previously reject from a speedy deletion on the basis that the article has seen organic growth but whatever has been written towards the article has always been biased. Please advice if this article should be nominated for deletion or not. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 09:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like an editor dispute, best handled through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and enforcement of the three-revert rule. If the other editors are anonymous consider asking for semi-protection. In general, s-p is not to be used to handle edit disputes but repeatedly inserting advertising is generally a form of vandalism and is grounds for semi-protection. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Also, if they insist in inserting copyrighted material, Wikipedia:Copyright violations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 11:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in the interest of slash and burn. No serious establishment of cited notability, and reads like spamvertisement. Content dispute resolution works where there's somethign to resolve; when no one on one side wants to fix things, raze it and start over. ThuranX (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment for ThuranX: Will that solve anything? Without dispute resolution, the editors will just spam the replacement article or create it all over again. With dispute resolution, the problem is solved. The only good think I can think of coming out of deletion is that it will be easier to quickly block the editors when they "restore deleted material." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete once as the notability is questionable. This organisation is not officially recognised as being affiliated with Pakistan and is a small pageant organiser in Canada. The information is purely advertising. I have tried settling onto a resolution with the author(s) but they seem contempt on recreating the article in its highly biased version. The article should be deleted once to show the authors that such actions can have consequences. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This forum is not itself an AfD. Please keep that in mind. Comments added here are not going to amount to an ultimate decision one way or the other. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of that. This is just to get an idea of how people judge this article's notability and worthiness and if there is a way of treating such spams, and if deletion is the answer. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity Check - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination)

A debate has been opened with regards at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination) regarding List of groups referred to as cults, however no rationale was provided. I've recommended speedy close, but want to make sure I'm not wildly off base. There appears to have been some discussion about deleting the article in the past, and several No Consensus AFDs indicate that there is opinion either way - but is this debate possible from a procedural basis, or should it be re-nommed? Thanks in advance. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been someone advocating something other than a speedy close, so it should probably stay open. But, if not for that, I'd completely agree with you that it should just be closed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think part of the instructions are wrong

In Step II of the instructions, for preparation of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName page, I believe the small print for a second or later nomination is incorrect. It says:

Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion, Category with a letter indicating the category of the debate, and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted.

If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).

The small print is incorrect. If you put "2nd nomination" in here, you will get redlinks that shouldn't be there. For an example of how this works, compare [1], which works, with [2], which doesn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just spent a minute toying with it, and I think I've got a solution. Change {{afd2}} to this and it oughta' work; without even having to have that extra line of text. I tried it out here and it seems to work the way I wanted it to. The interaction with {{afdx}} would now have it display whichever subpage name it's at. 'Course, I dunno' how to make it wikilink in the subtitle that way, but other than that it works pretty well. Drop a line at Template talk:Afd2 if you like it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)