Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Non-Admin Closures

There seems to be a growing spat of non-admin AfD closures, and I'm finding it very disconcerting. If closing an AfD were a simple thing, it wouldn't be something admins are primarily supposed to do. I've disagree with two closings of AfDs I personally nominated that were closed by a non-admin. One, I felt needed admin closure as it was a contentious issue with ample discussion and needed more than just someone counting comments as votes. The second was closed after only three days with no other explanation than keep.

I've always felt it weird that non-admins could close an AfD, but it didn't bother me too much because most editors were extremely judicious about it and mostly kept it to withdrawals. Now, however, it seems people are starting to do it as though they are admins and making it part of their regular Wiki-activities and this does not sit well with me. This has caused me to wonder two things: Are any admins keeping an eye on these non-admin closures to give oversight and to reverse when an AfD was closed improperly? Should non-admins even be allowed to close an AfD except in the case of a withdrawal of an AfD one made? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and its Talk page archives where this has been endlessly discussed. No, non-admins should not be closing discussions that are in any way controversial. And if they do, it is entirely appropriate for any editor (admin or not) to re-open the discussion. Just make a note in the discussion that it was inappropriately closed and administratively reopened as such-and-such times. Rossami (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note there, but after having yet another AfD closed by a non-admin after less than 24 hours of discussion, I'm wondering if it is time to bring the issue up for RfC or to a noticeboard to put a stop to non-admin closures all together, except for withdrawals. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've disagreed with Rossami before and will continue to do so, on whether non-admins can ever close controversial discussions - there is no need to get into that here; however, I entirely agree that there is nothing to prevent a non-admin from reverting a non-admin close (even though this is not explicit anywhere, it probably should be). The note in the discussion is important, one recent discussion over at MfD was closed and re-opened several times without any annotation to that effect - very problematic. I have a real problem with anyone, admin included, speedy closing a discussion without explaining the rationale.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine in the case of withdrawals, no delete votes after 5 days, AND THOSE ONLY. The reason for this is that unless there is a knowledgeable editor to keep these in check, bad things happen. In this case, the user blatantly ignored the speedy deletion rules and felt that it was perfectly alright to do so. If it hadn't been taken to DRV and subsequently overturned, it would have stayed that way. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New project

I am working on creating a new project on Wikipedia:Articles for restoration (obviously I have not yet created the page) that would serve as kind of the reverse purpose or continuation of this project. So, long as articles that are kept after an AfD can be renominated for deletion following "consensus can change" rationales, we must be able to have new discussions for restoring deleted articles as well as consensus can certainly change that the article should be kept. And rather than force editors to start from scratch if consensus does change that the article should be restored, we would have a venue by which we can restore a deleted version of the article along with everyone's deleted contribs. Whereas deletion review focuses on reconsidering bad closures or when the AfD process is compromised, Articles for restoration would focus just on the articles' merits. Anyway, as the project would be related to and an extension of this project, I thought I should allow for some community discussion here first. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Deletion Review process already covers that scenario. Deletion Review specifically allows reconsideration whenever there is evidence discovered that was not considered in the deletion discussion. Usually, that's evidence that existed but was not found by the discussion participants but sometimes it's new evidence - a subject who was not notable before but has since done something to achieve notability, for example. An entirely new process would seem to be an example of instruction creep. Rossami (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to separate the relatively routine requests for recreation of improved articles from the challenges to AfD decisions, which are usually much more controversial. DGG (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The observation rather than force editors to start from scratch if consensus does change that the article should be restored does have merit; but then again, you can always pick up the deleted text from the Wayback Machine, and often from all the Wikipedia mirrors who haven't deleted the article yet. And any article can be recreated - you can avoid speedy deletion of these articles by putting an "under construction" tag on the article, and then adding sufficient reliable primary sources and explanation of notability into your article during those first few hours of re-creation that it is obvious the article's topic is now worthy of inclusion. (I did this with Order of Nine Angles, which had already been deleted, DRVed, recreated and speedied. It is now a very good, nearly undeleteable article.) My problem with an AfR is that could effectively nullify the AfD process. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

More so than anything else, there are several serious problems with AfD that somehow need to be reformed: 1) we have over two hundred "in popular culture" related deletions that were achieved in part due to widespread sockpuppetry; 2) it's allegedly a discussion and not a vote and yet most AfDs look like a list of deletes and keeps with some stunned or offended by anyone who engages them in actual discussion and with some closures clearly sizing up the number of deletes versus keeps rather than say how the article developed as the discussion progressed, which of course means any initial pile on deletes should have far less relevance than later discussion that acknolwedges changes to the article during the AfD; 3) a week long discussion in which sometimes only a half dozen or so accounts participate really shouldn't lay down the verdict on an article that may have been around for months and which dozens or more editors may have contributed to (not to mention that something which does not have a deadline being pounced on in an AfD seems odd); 4) articles that are not hoaxes, libel, or copy vio and for which a redirect location exists should never be deleted as it is important for any potential RfA that the community at large including non-admins can see as much of their contribution history as possible; 5) some accounts do nothing more than "vote" not discuss in AfDs and it is hard to assess their actual knowledge of what goes into making good articles without them having ever really contributed to article development; etc. An Articles for restoration project may be a way to address some of these serious and detrimental problems with a currently terribly flawed system. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your numbered points, above, 1 2 and 5, are actually abuses of the AfD process which need to be rectified at DRV. They will typically happen with borderline articles, I find. Where there is an AfD with a bunch of commentless votes, a good administrator will discount those entirely: the only "votes" that matter are ones that address the rules. So, for example, if I say "delete - this subject is not notable", and you respond "comment - I have added references that pass WP:RS which demonstrate its notability", my vote is discarded because you have addressed its point. Or, at least, that's how it usually is. If there are true sockpuppets, tell an admin - socks are supposed to be punished. How does an AfR process address this better than the DRV process? The DRV guys seem to be one step up in the hierarchy, compared to the peanut gallery in AfD. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Just to clarify to those with whom I have discussed AfDs today (sorry for copy and pasting, but my one hand is still injured), going with my AfD participation for today, in the instances in which I argued to delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran), I provided evidence that I conducted a search for sources on multiple venues and made efforts to still do whatever I could to improve the article just in the off-chance that during the AfDs sources are indeed found and the article now has a start on being improved. In other words, I did not just throw down another repetitive “vote.” In cases where others already provided appropriate policy shortcuts like WP:HOAX, I did not merely repeat what they wrote. Once somebody has already provided a policy or guideline reason for deletion or keeping, there is no need to restate it as anyone reading the discussion should see it. After all, in a discussion, not a vote, the participants should advance new arguments and ideas as the discussion progresses. Now in the two instances (you read right, so far I argued to delete three articles today versus only two keeps) in which I argued to keep, consider them successively. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean was nominated as a non-notable book with four rapid delete votes claiming “no coverage” in secondary sources. Despite such assertions, KittyRainbow and I found SEVERAL sources including ones in which the article was given high reviews (Five Stars, Gold Award). I in turn used these sources to drastically revise the article by adding new sections and multiple references to an article only created four days ago anyway. And that is just with two of us conducting source searches in one day! So, here is an instance where you have a nom plus four delete votes with false claims and no evidence that searches for sources were even done to substantiate those claims only to have myself and another find a slew of sources with which I was able to significantly improve a four day old article. It frustrates me to no end to see so much of that in AfDs, i.e. editors just posting repetitive and false claims that could outnumber those keep arguments from editors who actually went out and found sources and spent time revising the article under question. Now, anyone approaching AfDs as a discussion would revisit his or her initial post taking into account the article’s development, but a minority of participants in AfDs ever do that. But my larger concern is still, why wouldn’t the nominators or initial delete voters just do what KittyRainbow and I did, i.e. look for sources and improve the article accordingly? Think how much would be accomplished, because then instead of KittyRainbow and I doing it here, we could be doing it to another article(s) without having to also post keep rationales in the AfD. The other AfD I argued to keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1349 Woking Squadron) was based on the First pillar and I offered some suggestions after checking the web to see if sources suggest legitimacy of the topic. Anyway, I hope that helps illustrate where I am coming from. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Le: Yup, that's exactly what people are supposed to do. I am happy to meet an inclusionist with your attitude. I can't speak for other noms, but in my case, I've only nominated for deletion articles which are blatant spam. Now, other noms might just see other less-spammy articles, see a complete lack of sources, see that the article was only written by one person, and so on - and say "well, it's obviously spam or otherwise not notable, let's get rid of it." An article should have good referencing from reliable sources demonstrating the article's notability before anyone nominates it for AfD. If it has no references, no sources, no encyclopedic style, a lot of the time an editor will give up rather than waste his time attempting to fix the article. And well he should - most of those articles are blatant junk. You'll find a few bad articles worth improving - okay, improve them! The ideal contribution for an inclusionist editor is attempting to fix articles when they come up as AfDs or prods. If you truly can fix them, then you're doing what you stand for, and improving our content in general. Good for you! But it's perhaps too much to expect non-inclusionists to volunteer to fix articles that even the article creator has never included any sources or notability for. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice reply. As you can see here and here, just as surely as I am willing to go after accounts that use sockpuppetry to get an article deleted (and in the past couple of weeks, we have determined several such sock farms), I absolutely am also willing to argue against and identify those accounts attempting to create nonsense articles as well or compromise an AfD in any fashion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the reference you give. An article was deleted after allegedly being voted against by sockpuppets. That, coincidentally, is what happened at the Order of Nine Angles AfD - a sokpuppet actually nominated the article. Unfortunately, Order of Nine Angles at the time was still unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia - it failed WP:N and WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:OR, for example. I see that the DRV result was a restoration of the article to your (or someone's) user space, where the article can stay until it's been improved and placed back into Wikipedia - whereupon, if the article has been improved sufficiently to meet inclusion criteria, it can stay. This is a good way of doing things, I think - if an article deserves future re-creation, put it in the hands of the user who wants re-creation, and if he ever does fix the article, he can put it back into Wikipedia. If an AfR process simply re-instates articles without putting the onus on an author to fix them, then we'll be left with the same old content we've just deleted under AfD. I like to see the onus placed on the author to re-create and meet Wikipedia criteria. The fact that the DRV process puts this in the hands of more experienced, regular users, makes the whole thing better, I think. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that the DRV result was a restoration of the article to your (or someone's) user space, where the article can stay until it's been improved and placed back into Wikipedia - It can stay as long as it's actively worked on. MfD routinely deletes articles sitting in userspace that have no sign of active improvement. Just to clarify.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw AFD

I'd like to withdraw the AFD for this page. How do I do that? NTAC (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Blanking the deletion discussion and removing the AfD template is definitely not the way to go about it. All you needed to do was add the statement to the AfD discussion that you'd like to withdraw your deletion nomination. (I've restored previous contents of the page and added your statement back in.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd failings

Afd is not a substitute for {{cleanup}}, nor for {{tooshort}}, {{notability}}, {{npov}}, {{unencyclopedic}} etc. I see all these things raised without first attempting to raise the appropriate tag on the articles page. Note the above 'Withdraw AFD' section, a typical example of an Afd that is then withdrawn because the article has been WP:HEY, such things should not come to Afd, they waste many editors time and such things should, in my opinion, be made a clear requirement in this articles page. SunCreator (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:DEL#Alternatives_to_deletion 'If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion'. SunCreator (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more strongly. For the AfDs of Nomophobia, Katutura Community Radio, and The Keltic Dreams (which I addinged sources to and the nomination was subsequently withdrawn), all it takes is a simple search on google to provide more than enough sources to assert notability. Because Wikipedia is always changing, AfDs should be based on the subject of the article, not its current state. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to alter the Afd article a little to encourage a bit more thought before raising an Afd. SunCreator (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done a few minor things, hopefully the extra clarity in the article will cause less false Afd's being raised. SunCreator (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, you must admit that poor or unencyclopedic articles can sit here forever without any improvement. No matter what flags have been put on an article. Submitting an article to AfD, when the notability is in question because there are no sources, is the best way of forcing the issue and getting the article either fixed or removed. You would not believe how many hoaxes there are on Wikipedia, and flagging them doesn't help. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you come across something with questionable notability, your first action should be to try to improve it, not try to delete it. If it can't be improved, then delete it. All that is being asked is that people put in a little effort instead "Oh, the article doesn't cite sources. Delete it." What should happen is "Oh, this article doesn't cite sources. I'll have a look on google news.", followed either by "Not a lot in the way of sources for this subject", or "Wow, I found a lot of sources. Good thing I didn't nominate this for deletion. I'll add those in now." Hoaxes, if they are hoaxes, wouldn't be shot down in an AfD. If they are hoaxes, then they should be speedily deleted. If its status is a hoax is debatable, do some research. If it turns out to not be a hoax, insert your improvements and move on. If you still think it's a hoax, nominate it for AfD, presenting your findings, and let some other people see if they can prove it isn't a hoax. If they can't, then it gets deleted. Asking people to actually do research before throwing something at AfD will only result in a better overall encyclopedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  One clarification only. Hoaxes are not speedy-deletable except in extremely rare and patently obvious cases (at which point, you're really applying WP:IAR, not WP:CSD). Far too many pages are initially tagged as hoaxes but turned out to be poorly written stubs about real though obscure topics. The AFD process reduces our problem with false positives. See Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes#Dealing with hoaxes for more. Hoaxes definitely should be deleted, just not speedily.

CSD G1 provides for the deletion of obvious hoaxes. Thus, you're not implementing IAR at all. The deleting admin is perfectly in line with policy. AfD does not need to see biographies about living people that live in other solar systems, dogs that developed the ability to speak Mandarin, or Hitler's secret space battleship. You see new page creations of this type all the time; just watch huggle for a few hours, and you'll find that these "rare" patently obvious cases are the norm and not the exception. Of course, for those that aren't obvious hoaxes (the AfD A Legand of Zelda movie that was an April Fools joke comes to mind), an AfD is the appropriate course of action. I just want to make sure no one gets the wrong idea and start nominating G1 material to AfD; more often than not, the result is someone from AfD tags it and it gets speedily deleted anyway, but it still wastes time that should be spent improving articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. If after checking, an article is not notable to WP:N, or still looks like a hoax etc then raise an Afd, the problem comes when simple things like adding {{notability}} to the article doesn't happen(at any time) and little or no effort is made by the nominator to find notability by looking on Google or checking with the contributors to the article. The lazy way is to create an Afd, without bothering to make any effort. That laziness is inappropriate in my opinion and I believe it violated some guideline the name of which currently escapes me. SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've said this before: I think we should use AfD as we do "redirects for discussion". Merge, delete, keep, are all valid, and I think we should also have "expedited cleanup" where the article needs to be seriously fixed in a set period or it's treated as delete. We have too many articles which are "keep and cleanup" without being cleaned up. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are indeed a lot of articles that require cleanup. Assessments shows that around 67% are Stubs, however WP:DEADLINE says There is no deadline. It certainly doesn't help here if those 67% or so of articles requiring attention come through the Afd process, even if 0.01% of them came to Afd it would just swamp the whole system. SunCreator (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• An interesting idea, but doing so would make the "This was deleted before" argument between completely and almost totally invalid. Timeframes would be much more a focus in DRV, as "I didn't have time to improve the article because I didn't know it was up for deletion" would become a much more valid point. Essentially, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" would become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but you have to come back at least once every five days". It's much better the other way; people improve what they improve when they can, and if there are sources that show something can be improved, it doesn't get deleted because it can be improved. Wikipedia is not working toward a deadline every 5 days. Regarding RfDs, redirects are, well, redirects. It's not the same thing at all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I don't think either of those is a big problem. A sourced article on a subject that was previously deleted as unsourced, is fine. A new article on something thatw as deleted as non-notable, but which fails WP:CSD#G4, will still be deleted if it does not have evidence of notability. And "please restore, I have sources and will fix" has always been an acceptable request at DRV, in my view. Even if we userfy rather than simply deleting. I'd also be interested in seeing if we can work up a triage system: obvious keeps, obvious deletes, and ones which may or may not be worth having. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the failing of AfD is it is only for binding deletions of articles. This is a problem when disputed and controversial mergers are being discussed. I think that as a last resort AfD should not solely be for deletions there should also be a kind AfM as well for merging articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly on this last point. Mergers and other editorial disputes need to be resolved through the normal editing, discussion and conflict resolution processes used everywhere else in the project. Deletions get special treatment only because they involve the removal of pagehistory - an act that can only be undone through use of admin-powers and that can only be effectively reviewed by admins. Mergers and other changes to content which do not affect the pagehistory can be reviewed and if necessary undone by any editor. Rossami (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with AfDs are that so many have had serious issues within the discussions, consider all the disruption caused in numerous AfDs by these nearly thirty accounts confirmed as socks within the last week. These sock accounts were usually on the deletion side of the discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope those socks' arguments were taken for what they are, whether or not anyone saw their sockiness. After all, an AfD isn't a vote, it's a debate, and you don't even need sockpuppets to participate in an AfD. One good, uncounterable argument, for deletion or retention, is all that is needed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see here, they may have influenced at least some participants in discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just want to throw something out there: does anyone feel that part of the problem is that there is a disconnect between different editors' interpretation of WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:N? I generally limit myself to garage-band AfDs, but I do find that some people (sometimes connected personally with the article topic, but also some very productive regular editors) put forward sources that, to me personally, don't remotely establish notability and aren't remotely reliable sources - blogs, webzines, and so on. I'd personally like to see a lot more print sources instead of the easy internet sources; and maybe I'm also fixated on having external sources which actually assert the notability of the topic. I am a deletionist, but you won't see me AfDing articles on e.g. minor 17th-century Sufi poets; my real desire is that the article establish the topic's notability, and uses good sources, like what you'd expect from a real encyclopedia. And that any article, even one created today, has at least one or two real sources backing up everything that's said in the article, so that the casual reader can tell the article was researched, isn't a hoax, isn't a vanity article, and so on. Otherwise, the casual reader may form the impression that Wikipedia is just a posting board that anyone can use to promote their own garage band or latest release through Lulu Press - which is happening right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources I put forward when people are using AfD as cleanup are print sources derived from a ProQuest subscription. However, since other people don't have the same subscription and I can't link to an abstract, my sources are often shot down as unverifiable. To me, it would seem that print sources, unless you can find an internet presence of the paper, are no longer considered valid sources simply because other editors can't click on them, which I find greatly disturbing. This may also explain the prominence of webzines and blogs being cited (although I think that blogs of notable people such as Ann Coulter and blogs maintained by journalists and teams of journalists (such as IGN) are citable with the same reliability as print sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your source of ProQuest can be shot down. My understanding is you only have to cite where the evidence for verifiability is WP:V, and if necessary you could provide page, edition etc. If someone doesn't have the book or magazine then to me that's not your problem, you can't expect everyone to have every book. I hope you reconsider using all sources you have that you can verify exist. SunCreator (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often I get comments like "The refs make a big difference. Onne thing really concerns me, though, and that is the fact that the (whatever newspaper) articles are behind a membership wall, which makes them a little tough to verify." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. There might even be another person on wiki that subscribes anyway. Most subscription magazine/books type things have circulation of 5,000+ otherwise they wouldn't be viable. And another thing, anyone questioning it should assume good faith, so we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. In short a reference is welcome and meets WP:V. SunCreator (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, same here. Print sources (of decent quality, of course) should definitely be considered top-level. That certainly is disturbing. Internet sources, even articles from net portals of newspapers, disappear with regularity. And it says something about how serious Wikipedia is about being an encyclopedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, I have now been in a AFD where editors in good standing have, in all seriousness, called a subject "not notable" even though it is covered in a separate article in a general purpose print encyclopedia, something I would consider the strictest possible definition for "encyclopedic". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can well believe it "not notable print encyclopedia" articles being nomincated Sjakkalle, as least in your example the nominator defined a valid reason, which you can quickly challenge. It not always the case and some nominations can be vague, those are difficult to deal with, because to know the Afd is a keep you have to check every possible reason it could be a valid Afd and that takes much longer to research and longer to reply to. SunCreator (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. Many responders seem to be quite lazy and frivolous. For example, see Goofing off where most early respondents addressed the subject in the manner of giggling schoolchildren. I searched and immediately found a huge body of scholarly research upon the topic. My impression is that too many respondents are influenced by the title of an article and can't see beyond this to the topic which the title represents. There is a bias against plain English and a preference for prententious jargon. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When someone adds a print source to an article, we assume that they have seen it and can verify (on request) what it contains. So I believe an editor who adds such a source should expect to answer questions about its contents. For instance, to give examples of the exact language that it uses to evaluate the subject of an article. An 'inaccessible' source had better be accessible at least to the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Such sources are most often required to establish notability in AFD discussions. In such cases, it is enough to establish that the topic is worthy of notice without going into the details of what has been said. Abstracts and extracts are adequate for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my case I see now that I had access to the online version because of a subscription, and that others may not have that. But I am still astounded that people will judge "Lotto" to be "not notable" when Store norske leksikon has an article on it, describing the rules, history, size, and use of profits. When that article goes (and that includes being redirected), I will know that AFD has gone haywire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether a source can be used without seeing it depends on what its used for. It certainly cant be used that way for proving contradicted points, or negative things about a living person. It can be used for notability, if it can be shown that thee is substantial coverage. Sometimes the is shown by extent of pages. But the existence of a book or article devoted to a subject is usually at least partial indication of notability, and a library catalog is enough evidence it exists. I wouldn't necessarily say the same about Amazon. If we required seeing the book, it would curt off many topics for most contributors. But google Books is pretty much equalizing things for pre-1920/1900 subjects,--

As another complication, we commonly use abstracts of magazine articles. These again may not give full or in-context information. But if we stopped doing this, a great many of our contributors couldn't work on any subject involving the academic world. some of us with access offer copies on a limited basis, but there is no way I could offer to do it generally for all of the people in wikipedia. (in fact, they're probably about to change the US copyright law to require that people go through their own library, not directly to another library.)DGG (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing AfD

Lately I've run across a couple closed but unsuccessful AfD's that have been moved back to the talk pages of the corresponding articles and then transcluded to the AfD Log (see this AfD log and the article talk pages Talk:Abraham a Sancta Clara and Talk:George Walton Academy). I'd like to raise this as a bad practice because it means that the relevant deletion log becomes categorized under the articles assessment rating. This is a completely unnecessary headache as there really in no reason that the entire talk page needs to be transcluded. Moving the discussion to a subpage of the talk and transcluding both to the talk and to the AfD log would make sense. As for these two articles, I've temporarily fixed the banners (encased in noinclude tags) but it still stands out as a bad practice. Does anyone have any input on how to prevent this? Adam McCormick (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that predates me. :) Have you run across any more current than 2005? If not, it might not be an active concern in terms of prevention. You might want to talk to the admin who did it on those two pages at User talk:SimonP to find out more about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Those were just the ones that happened to catch my attention, if it's not common it's not a big deal, I just happened across those two on the same page after one turned up in a category I work in. Thank you for responding nonetheless. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The process of VfDs used to involve discussion on a single page. When the discussion was completed, the text would be copy-pasted onto the article's Talk page as an archive. We did not then have the process of separate discussion pages and transclusions. There are lots of those out there. I don't know why anyone would have bothered with the hybrid approach that you've discovered here but the datestamps indicate that it happened about when the process was being changed so I'm not surprised that there were some mistakes made at the time. It's never been worth the effort to clean them up but if the tagging really bothers you that much, just fix them as you find them. Don't worry about it being accepted practice anymore. Rossami (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the informed and well-worded response. I'm just glad the process has changed. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Help, please, with AfD red link

I opened the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Holy Family (prayer), and it clearly exists, but the AfD box on the article, The Holy Family (prayer) shows a red link. What's wrong? Aleta ^Sing 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

looks like someone has fixed it. Maybe the database was slow in updating? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It still shows red for me. (I specifically mean where it says "this article's entry" in the AfD notice box on the article. If you click on it, it takes you directly into editing the AfD page.) Aleta ^Sing 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not anymore for me, but did when it was first reported above. Perhaps this is an issue of the local internet cache. SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Economist on "deletionism"

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354

As usual, I ask all AFD participants to please conduct themselves as if they are in the public eye and every cough and fart will be quoted out of context by the general media ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• What's quite amusing is that they cite the difference in cover between the Solidarity movement and Pokémon as being down to inclusionism vs. deletionism, but the trivia being deleted is not, as far as I can tell, biographies of dull-but-worthy Communist-era activists, the crap that's being deleted is actually a lot more like the Pokémon. Cause of the week seems to be the absurdly inflated in-universe articles on minor D&D characters; I don't see how keeping those would encourage the authors to go on to write about the tens of thousands of important missing subjects. What people actually want to wrtite about is their garage band, their favourite website, themselves, and of course Jimbo getting caught with his trousers down. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• David's admonition that we should always be professional in our discussions is always good advice. But I didn't see anything in that article that Wikipedians should be ashamed of. To be quite blunt, the Economist article came across as sour grapes by someone whose pet article got deleted. Rossami (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Seriously. And I like the ridiculous idea that its the "deletionists" who tend to wikilawyer. Yea right. Eusebeus (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, I think it's that the project is generating enough interest now as a social experiment that some news organizations look in from time to time, that's all. This is a big thing here now, so it gets covered, as opposed to pinpoint topics like the images on Muhammad debates, which used to be about all we'd get coverage of. We went from THE scandal, to the Essjay scandal, to the images, which was progress ,because at least the third showed we had a 'better' side, to this, which is far more about the internal workings. Oddly, I must've missed the article in print, in this week's issue. I'll go look. ThuranX (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I read it on the way home this evening. It seemed a bit dated - you won't find good articles on Pokemon if you look currently. My impression was that the main source was the author who has been working on a book about Wikipedia. Anyway, its points are good ones. The Economist is one of the best English-language newspapers - famous for its informative and well-written style. Any criticism it makes should be taken seriously.

I am myself an AFD regular. When I first encountered Wikipedia, I happened to read an interesting article that was being proposed for deletion and I was outraged at the proposed destruction of knowledge. Since then I have been checking the proposals daily and my imression is that the mechanism is poor. Few discussions seem to engage more than 10 editors and lately AFDs have been cycling round two or three times to try to attract comment. It seems that many of the participants see the process as an extension of Speedy Deletion and they consequently have a bias towards deletion. Nominators rarely seem to make a proper effort to search for sources and it is often easy to shoot them down just by making a simple Google search. Material which is out of Google's reach is tough to save because it seems that almost nobody is prepared to exert themselves enough to research paper sources. I occasionally go look in a book or magazine myself but the effort involved is so disproportionate that I only save it for last ditch defences.

So, by being so dependent upon Google searches, Wikipedia is effectively becoming an extension of Google. The Economist makes the point that Google is now entering the field with its Knol idea. It will be interesting to see the balance of power in another 5 years time...

Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, as a fresh example of deletionism in action, I offer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved murders in the United Kingdom. This seems like quite a good topic to me - the sort of material that The Economist might put into its Christmas issue or a special feature on forensics/policing. And yet we have a horde of deletionists wanting to destroy this article on a variety of specious grounds - that the article is hard to maintain; that other countries might want one too; that the murdered people don't deserve such fame. I am quite amazed at the negative and hateful attitude on display in this discussion. These are the instincts of petty bureaucrats not of inquiring minds. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh... I noticed that the closing admin said "this article can be improved, let's keep it." So... who is working on improving the article? Nobody. Absolutely nobody. If you want to keep such an article so badly, you should contribute to its improvement. Will it sit there in the same condition for another year before someone else comes by and takes it to AfD yet again? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One good point is "To create a new article on Wikipedia and be sure that it will survive, you need to be able to write a “deletionist-proof” entry and ensure that you have enough online backing (such as Google matches) to convince the increasingly picky Wikipedia people of its importance. This raises the threshold for writing articles so high that very few people actually do it." I have multiple times now seen a day or two old stub nominated for deletion only to have myself and/or others rapidly improve it during the ultimately unnecessary AfD. One error though: "“regular” deletion, which means the entry is removed after five days if nobody objects"--I wish!  :) Obviously articles are (many times unfortunately) deleted even when there are objections. Anyway, have you checked out the comments? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody edited Unsolved murders in the United Kingdom just the other day. If the article had been deleted, they would have either given up or had to start from scratch again. Deletion would clearly have been an act of mindless destruction in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the Colonel above that the mechanism is poor. It almost seems purposeful the way that the Articles for Deletion page takes 3 links from the main page: Community Portal--->Quick Directory--->Articles for deletion (way down the list), then they are separated by day for some strange reason. It'd be better if they were all listed on one page, at least as an option. Plus, 5 days is entirely too short of a time to discuss these things. It should be changed to 2 weeks or so. Deletion in general is often a case of mindless destruction; many of these articles could clearly be spruced up rather than deleted. And that's what should happen. OptimistBen (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "many of these articles can be spruced up rather than deleted" is the reason that "If an article can be fixed or improved through the normal editing processes, then it isn't a good candidate for deletion. Unfortunately, many people still seem to hold the view that AfD is some kind of forced cleanup mechanism rather than something to be used to determine whether or not something is verifiable/notable enough to deserve an article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not sure what the solution is; I'd hope that with more people, the results would be more reasonable. More people would keep track of them if the AfD link was displayed more prominently. Also, more inclusionists need to keep track of AfDs. The people who do track AfDs seem to be generally more deletionist. Also, there is trouble with the notability guideline: some organizations which are important receive a relatively small amount of third-party coverage because they are in unexciting areas; the attention just isn't uploaded on the WWW. Just because there's not a huge amount of Google hits for something doesn't mean it's not notable. Note CRU Group, an article I recently recreated -- it's highly important in the fertilizer industry, but you have to dig rather deep to find substantial third-party coverage. To me the fact that it was founded in 1969, publishes an academic journal, and hosts leading conferences seems notable, but apparently [not to others. Incidentally, how would I find the AfD for this? I looked through the achive and it's not on the day of that log. The archives need to be fixed so that they are searchable; putting them all on one page would allow me to use CTRL-F at least. OptimistBen (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the log indicated, it was deleted by WP:PROD instead of WP:AFD. If it's cached, the PROD tag might be there. Otherwise, taking it to WP:DRV gets it undeleted in a hurry. As far as including all the AfD's on a single page, I'd really hesitate to do that. It already takes a while for a single AfD log page to load, simply due to the size of the pages. Including more would be a very bad idea. Maybe someone can write a tool to do it. Searching for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/<page name>" should work most of the time, at least. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I find old PRODs? I want to see what that page looked like. I searched for PROD CRU; nothing. And aren't they just sneaky ways to delete articles? I doesn't seem like many people even browse through them. OptimistBen (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are all the AfDs

I know that the list of AfDs is way smaller than it should be. What's the deal? To make things easier, we need to structure at least one AfD that is unorganized -- one that lists all AfDs, so I can just use a CTRL-F to find the one I'm looking for. Also, I'm looking for this page. It's not in the organization category of AfDs, and it's not on the disambig page for CRU. OptimistBen (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

afd error

So i just tried to afd an article using twinkle. It did everything but create the AFD page. Just a redlink on the log. What's the best way to fix it?--Cube lurker (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• It can be fixed by going to the article and clicking on "preloaded debate" in the template, which links to a page with the template, and the instructions for completing it. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tools

Can someone point me to any tools / scripts to make admin closing of AfDs a bit easier? I'm definitely spoiled by Twinkle and Friendly. :)--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I found one. Thanks.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Reversing the AFD default for BLPs about changing how AFD results are evaluated when the subject of an article is a living person. GRBerry 19:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

I was just wondering if all AFD topics should be in the [[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] so that when someone adds a comment e.g. here. [1] then they would be automatically signed :). This might be able to be added in the template or something. What do you other guys think? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• God no. I hate that bot Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion versus vote

Dear fellow editors, I am increasingly seeing a real split among editors referring in Deletion review and even within AfDs about AfDs being "a discussion and not a vote", but also citing the "vote tally" or approaching the AfD as one would approach a vote. Now, if it is indeed a discussion and not a vote, then why do so many AfDs look like a vote, i.e. just a list of "deletes" and "keeps" with little actual discussion (interaction among the participants)? I have noticed quite a few AfDs where there may be the nomination followed by several rapid delete stances, but then the article is improved drastically and those editors never return to the discussion to comment one way or the other on the article's improvements/developments during the discussion, i.e. many seem to just go down the daily AfD list leaving deletes (or sometimes keeps) and then moving on without actually discussing the article. In other instances, such as here, some editors vehemently resist the AfD being a discussion rather than just a list of "votes" and aggresively criticize any who do attempt to discuss the article under question or who challenge others' arguments. So, I'm just curious on what the actual consensus is with regards to AfD? Are we supposed to engage each other in discussion, even if it's a spirited discussion/debate, and make attempts to resolve issues the nominator had as the discussion progressed and discuss those efforts during the AfD or is it really more of a vote? I guess I'm asking if there's a "right" way to approach these things? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you really believe AFD is a discussion and not a vote, you would accept that the lists of Columbine and Virginia Tech victims violated Wikipedia policy re:NOT#MEMORIAL and the admins were correct in closing them as delete, regardless of how the actual "!vote" went. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I found the keep arguments far more compelling and that they successfully refuted any claims about the articles being a memorial. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • And obviously the closing admins disagreed. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • One closing admin did, but other admins and editors disagreed with that closure as is playing at on Deletion review. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• 2005 called and wants its thread back. Eusebeus (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussing is good...but taking it too far isn't. Questioning *every* person who disagrees with you, even if they've said the same thing as those above, is rarely going to help your cause, and will probably give you less chance of convincing the closer that your side of the debate is the "right" one, if you will. My advice, Le Grand Roi, is to seriously consider if it's worth taking up a point with each commenter (or voter, or whatever...) who disagrees with you (obviously, discussion with the first view "votes" should take place), and to think about how this will look to someone who's grumpy, in a hurry, and generally not as passionate as you are (and there are a few too many of those around, unfortunately...don't ever let them tell you that discussing is bad, just remember that there IS a limit). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and advice. I will definitely reflect on it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My own understanding, from the 100 or so AfDs I've started and others I've voted in, is that AfD is indeed meant to be a discussion. The nom provides a rationale for deleting; people either agree or disagree; there is supposed to be proper reference to Wikipedia guidelines; points should be made as to whether or not the article meets the guidelines; maybe the quality of sources (or complete lack thereof) should be mentioned; and so on.

If, say, there is an article sent to AfD for having a non-notable subject, and then Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles not only finds proof of notability but also adds that proof to the article with references, a good voter should either change his vote to keep, or provide some other reason for maintaining his delete vote (say, he feels the sources you added are insignificant, or don't otherwise satisfy WP:RS, or whatever). But some voters don't come back. Well, a good closing admin should take into account that the reason for their delete votes has since been addressed, and discount their votes.

Ideally, I think there should be a consensus; and really, if all editors agreed on their interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, and if no editors had ulterior motives for participating in AfD discussions (as we so often see in the case of biographical or business articles), there would be consensus. So, failing consensus, I think a closing admin should be examining the arguments given for either side, seeing which arguments are the best, and closing based on that.

Really, Large King of Orange Gourdlike Squash, it should generally work out that way. If it doesn't, and you're concerned Wikipedia is losing content, remember we're getting something like 5000 new articles a day and only 100 a day are going to AfD. It will all work out in the end. The best to do is just add sources and improve articles - and not be afraid to take an unfavourable result to DRV, where the real pros hang out. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, in the case of e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy), where external sources apparently were found but the article was still deleted - would you consider asking the closing admin what his reasoning was? If there were indeed third-party sources added to the article to assert notability, I can see your concern in the article's deletion - and in any case, I get really steamed when a closing admin closes without a proper explanation. He's expected to take the time to read the arguments pro and con; why, then, can't he take the time to put the reason for the closing decision in the AfD, so we can all know? I'm anti-pop-culture and a deletionist, and even I think that AfD result fails the smell test (I haven't figured out how to find the article to see how good it was before deletion). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

JG-E

I'm the creator of JG-E. It has been put under the articles of deletion. Well I just wanted to say that I am in favor of deleting this page. I don't even need it. It's very unreasonable so I suggest you just delete it. I will even speedy delete it myself. Anfish (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Been deleted. Tagged the redirect at JG-E for speedy. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates for single use accounts

Are there templates we can add in to an AfD to indicate that an editor has not commented outside of an AfD, or that an editor has not commented outside of the article and AfD in question? Is the use of these templates encouraged/discouraged? Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The only one of which I am aware is {{spa}}, which produces this (which I'll tag myself with for example purposes). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) — Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've seen users take offense about being tagged in this manner, especially if they feel strongly about the topic. In many cases, such accounts will be obvious without being tagged, so sometimes it's not worth the hassle. Often, a larger notice at the top of the page is more useful than individual tags. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to alternative AfD interfaces

Whatever happened to alternative AfD interfaces, such as User:Dragons flight/AFD summary or User:ArkyBot/AFD summary/all? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bots playing up, I'm guessing. There is a new alternative one, I think, but I've got no idea where... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, the AfD pages are huge, making them virtually inaccessbile for dial up connections, and something about these pages in particular seems to cause my poor computer to grind along very slowly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I might recommend looking at User:ST47/AfDC, which shows the total (and open) cases by category. It's not good for linking to each debate, but the category pages are just lists of debates, so it's better for browsing topic areas and items of interest. Should probably work for low-bandwidth users, at least in the absence of the other trackers. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

There seems to be a systemic issue with editors suggesting "Delete" when they mean redirect. I think this may sometimes affect outcomes. For example, look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Force_lightning. Some editors said redirect, some said delete, a couple said keep. It was non-admin closed as delete. Why delete a term that users might search on? It doesn't meet any reasons for deleting a redirect given at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. The closing editor stated that the commenters had "determined that the content should not even be merged". I think that editor was led astray by the "Delete" opinions from editors that most likely would have been happy with a redirect. I believe that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD needs to make the options available more clear. It should describe options of "Keep", "Delete", and "Redirect", and state when each option is suitable. It's sometimes said that AfD is not the place for redirect discussions, however if articles are being deleted that should have been redirected then it's clear that in practice redirect decisions are taking place in AfDs, so the options available should clearly reflect the real practice, by clearly defining terms to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise misunderstandings like the one above will continue to take place. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a suggestion to this effect:

If you think the article should be disambiguation page, or a redirect to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation" or "Redirect". Do not recommend deletion in such cases, because deleted pages cannot be redirects or disambiguation pages.

I think there is a lot of miscommunication going on around this at the moment and a little more clarity would make AfD discussions easier to read and decide on. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Diana Mercado

Hvrhon (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would consider removing this article. Diana Mercado is a great singing talent and she has proved this by reaching the semi-finals on a nationally televised singing contest.

I wrote this biography to enlighten her fans on her background and her climb to stardom.

That's just it though - making the semis on a television program isn't enough for notability. Now, if she would have WON the show, that's entirely different. As of yet though, she hasn't done anything of note. ArcAngel (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest, to make it a tad easier, we keep score of the votes, like in the RfA. I see on some pages, a bunch of deletes and a bunch of keeps and oh, how to compare? Do you think we should do this? --Alisyn^talk 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NO! NO! NO! (Can you guess that I have strong feelings about this?) Voting is evil and anything that reinforces the misperception that we're "voting" in a deletion discussion is equally evil. The "score" has nothing to do with the final answer and any admin who makes a call based only on nose-counting is seriously abrogating his/her responsibilities. A single well-cited argument in compliance with established policy can outweigh a dozen unreasoned "me too" opinions. More than that, though, vote-tallies can be actively harmful because they tend to polarize and stifle discussion. The best discussions find answers are discussion and fact-based research. Deletion discussions are contentious enough without deliberately making the problem worse. The truth is that we've tried this before and I'll even admit that I did it a couple of times when I was new to the process. Every time it turns out to be far more harmful than helpful. Nose-counting is a bad idea for deletion discussions. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Rossami, make that 110% - we shouldn't be counting them in RFAs either! But in an XfD discussion the count is meaningless. We should have no interest in knowing the count, it has no bearing on the outcome and it can only make things worse for everybody. You compare by reading the discussion, evaluating the strengths of the policy arguments, and determining a rough consensus from that information; 1 policy based keep can overcome dozens of "per noms" if the nom isn't grounded in policy. (BTW, there is a template for summarizing the points but not the count - but the only times it's really at all useful are in discussions that are extremely contentious, and then it will inevitably be seen as pushing one side or the other and essentially disruptive, it's been used once, and it was removed from the discussion at least once).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Volume of Deletes and Keeps is useful for gauging overall trends in support - particularly if most of the keeps come after an article was improved significantly, or if most of the deletes come in after an allegation of copyvio. In those cases, the "counts" help to show the weight given to a particular argument, and are useful only in that context. In general, though, a small number of good, solid policy arguments for keeping will outweigh a greater number of "zomg I Don't like it" !votes, which is why a raw tally would probably not be helpful. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant, like if an article had 312412 deletes and 384720 keeps, should an admin take time looking or should we put (384720/312412)--Alisyn^talk 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have time to read them, you don't have time to close that discussion. The raw numbers have no relevance to anything.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was under the impression that the only thing that matters in AfD is which argument is most successful in demonstrating whether or not an article meets Wikipedia rules and/or guidelines. You can have an AfD with 7 deletes and 3 keeps which should be kept; you can have an AfD with 3 deletes and 7 keeps which must be deleted. IT all depends on whether or not the article has addressed the concerns raised about it, and not who's voting how. We're supposed to make the right decision, not the popular one. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As well, I'll agree even more what Doug says: the very long, involved AfDs that I've seen went beyond your typical arguments about WP:RS and so on, into very important and complex discussions about Wikipedia ethics, editing standards, conflicts of interest, synthesis, problems with biographies of living persons, problems arising from the use of non-English language sources, political brou-hahas, and so on. And that huge type of AfD discussion will probably involve several editors successfully addressing many different complaints about the article, in sequence, or also bringing up newer more esoteric complaints that are still valid. No admin should close that size AfD unless they're prepared to impartially and deeply consider each issue that has arisen in the AfD. If you personally don't have the time, leave it for someone else to close: there's always a better admin who has more time. They don't all have to close in 5 days. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

QUOTING Rossami: "A single well-cited argument in compliance with established policy can outweigh a dozen unreasoned "me too" opinions." Please will someone point to actual examples where one or two arguments have persuaded the closing admin in the face of a dozen or more contrary opinions. CBHA (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you want a specific example, which I can't think of off the top of my head, but I have had some of the "me toos" gripe at me for ignoring their !votes when I close an AfD. Frankly, if you find a case where the closing admin doesn't look at the strength of the arguments, but instead relies on vote counting, you should definitely talk to them about their reasoning. Either something was going on that you didn't see (in which case the admin probably should have left a bit more in the closing summary than 'delete' or 'keep'), or the admin needs a refresher course in deletion policy. If someone approaches me in a nice way (rather than "hey, you idiot, how could you close it that way???"), I'm always happy to talk about a close, because I might actually learn something. --Fabrictramp (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Speedy-keep mechanism for bad content/notability articles that lack requests for improvement

There's a large discussion at WT:NOT over the WP:PLOT clause, ultimately that if an article who's content fails NOT, or lacks notability through NOTE or other sub-guidelines, it will be deleted. (per WP:DEL). However, this issue is causing strong concern for some because basically, this means that editors may only be given 5 days to take an article that completely fails content/notability policy to get it to spec. Ideally, even suggested by WP:DEL and other areas, deletion should only be considered after other editing improvement avenues have been explored, and thus I wonder if we should consider codifying this better here at AFD.

Specifically, when an article is AFD presently, we assume good faith that the nominator has tried to work with editors to improve the article, at minimum leaving one of the normal cleanup tags to be dealt with in a reasonable amount of time before bringing the article to AFD. However, it may be necessary to actually make sure this practice is done, or that if it has not been done, the AFD for the article is removed for the time being to give editors more time to correct the problem. There are three possible avenues to approach this that could be done:

1. The AFD submitter, if deleting an article for bad content or notability issues, needs to show that attempts to request improvement have been made at least two weeks prior to the AFD, via diffs or whatever other mechanism, and that no good faith attempts have been made to improve the article since that point. If the AFD request lacks this, and others discover by investigating histories or the like that no such requests for improvement have been made, the AFD should be speedily closed as kept, though this in itself should be taken as a notification to request improvement of the article (eg, in two weeks, a new AFD can be submitted for it)
2. Any editor should be able to mimic the same {{holdon}} functionality that is there for CSDs, asking for a speedy close to work on improvements in the article. As above this should be taken as a request to improve the article, starting a time frame
3. Sorta in conjunction with the above, the closing admin, after 5 days, should consider whether there has been notification for improvement made on the article, and if he feels there has not been, should close the AFD as keep, but again,

Regardless of this case, the result will likely merit a new tag on the article page, stating something to the extent that "This article was recently proposed for deletion on DATE but was kept to allow further improvements towards (list of issues) to be made. If, after two weeks from DATE, these issues are not resolved, this article may be brought again for deletion.", making it rather imperative to the editors that while they can stall once a deletion, they need to make good faith efforts to improve the article to avoid it a second time.

I use two weeks as a generally reasonable length, but this could also be up to one month. Of course, such articles are tagged and categorized so that they can be tracked as needed.

Mind you, deletion of patent nonsense still should be done without this approach. Additionally, if the AFD is a result of a content dispute (an article's notability has been questioned in discussions somewhere prior to the AFD), this method cannot be used since notification has been done already.

The goal of this is to hopefully offload work from AFD and cut down the number of cases to those that only result from the end of dispute resolution. If the same editor keeps coming up with nominations for articles that have not had fair warning to be improved, this editor should be told that continually doing this is against policy and guidelines and could result in a block. --MASEM 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• We already have something like this (not a speedy keep criteria). There are templates like cite and verify, expand and prod that notify the editors. Most of the time, these templates remain for weeks, months, and even years before an AfD. If an editor cannot get an article together in 5 days, its unlikely that it will happen. I disagree with the assertion that the submitter of an AfD needs to ask the editors to correct the article to conform to guidelines (its common sense that this needs to be done in the first place). An AfD is telling you that in its current state, it shouldn't be here. And besides, when you create an article, it tells you to make sure it will be suitable. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes more than 5 days to improve many of these articles, especially the ones requiring older print sources. This especially holds when many articles are nominated at the same time. I have great difficulty in retaining an assumption of good faith when people do such nominations, for they make rational work impossible and seem intended to prevent any real opportunity for improvement. Most good articles are madeincrementallyDGG (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd say hold off on creating an article until it meets wikipedia's standards! Theres also userspace and lets not forget recreation when it meets guidelines/policies. I think 5 days is adequate time to establish notability. I'd rather it be less actually, but I'm not going to suggest it or anything. SynergeticMaggot (talk)

my experience is that its much harder than that for many topics, but then of course i may not have the necessary background to know how to do research. DGG (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

5 days is plenty of time to find sources. A thorough Google search takes a couple of hours at the most. Epbr123 (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Five days is totally insufficient. Reliable sources do not only exist on the internet and many journals and magazines do not have their full publication histories avaulable online or if they are online they are not always available for free. There are all sorts of articles that would satisfy reliable sources requirements but exist in magazines and other publications that cannot be located through a website. Encyclopedia writers do not just rely on the internet, but also do research in published sources as well and so it is unacceptable to give people a five day limit, especially when our contributors have other work outside of Wikipedia. During a five day school week for example, I can be focused on teaching, and not have time to go to a library or look through back issues of magazines. Thus, the article is shampooed if nominated on Monday for sources I can say find on Saturday. Plus, for articles that editors worked on over a span of months might not even check it when it's on AfD, so say a week passes and they return to it intending to add sources only to find it inexplicably and unnecessarily removed. If the article is not a hoax, a copyright violation, or libel, then there is rarely any pressing need to delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

despite what I've said above, though, I do know enough to know that even for popular culture, there's a lot more in the world than is in google & its auxiliaries. DGG (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In the very rare cases when print sources need to be found, the article author can request more time if they know the print sources exist. It shouldn't take too long for the print sources to be found if the article content was based on them; if the content wasn't based on any sources, the article would be better off deleted anyway. Epbr123 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I rather like item 2, for several reasons. First, it isn't all that radical a change, and would be a reasonable solution at present (I doubt that anybody would insist on deleting an article in the presence of a good-faith and realistic offer to make it comply with WP policies & guidelines). Second, it would be beneficial to the encyclopaedia to make this option obvious, perhaps even mentioning it in the {{afd}} banner, since it is likely to result in improvement of a significant number of articles. Finally, if a previous AfD is closed as a result of such an offer, it provides strong evidence that efforts have been unsuccessful in making the article comply with encyclopaedic standards, thus making it easier to ultimately delete long-term problematic content, even if it is popular problematic content. Jakew (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think this proposal (like most of the discussion that started this at WP:NOT) is based on a misstatement of the way the deletion process works. Editors who think the page can be improved are not under a rigid 5-day window to fix the page before deletion. They merely have to make a credible case that improvement is reasonably possible. As long as at least one editor in good-standing says that he/she will actually work on the page, the community almost always grants that person the benefit of doubt during the deletion discussion and the discussions are closed exactly as Masem proposes. The comment in the AFD by the person who thinks the page can be salvaged already serves the same function as the {{hangon}} tag on a speedy.
  In those cases where the process doesn't work exactly as it should, DRV is usually quite lenient about allowing the restoration of the page to a user's space to any editor in good standing who expresses a commitment to improve the page. This extra layer of bureaucracy seems well intentioned but unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, as it will help to protect against a clutch of similar-topic AFDs being raised at the same time, stretching the resource of available editors to resolve the issues. It would also help to maintain the mantra that AfD is not cleanup. I do, however, have a couple of process concerns.

• How do you see this working in practice? Do you see a process of maintenance tags, followed by prod, followed by AfD?
• Are you looking at rigid timescales between the different process gates, or purely a minimum period?
• Would you expect AfD patrol, in a similar way to the form that prod patrol works now?
• How would you ensure that this reduces the overall workload involved in AfD processing, instead of migrating it from one part of the process to another? I can see how it would allow editor resource to be balanced more in terms of article repair, as well as giving impetus to editor teams to repair articles earlier rather than later, but won't it require extra resource at AfD check in order to make sure the article has not missed a gate?
• How would this integrate with speedy deletes, particularly failed speedy deletes?

I'm all for making sure that articles aren't rushed through AfD, that articles don't end up in maintenance tag limbo and that cleanup actualy happens, but by the same token I'd also like to make sure that a process doesn't add to the overall workload on ediors. Also, it might be worth noting that there's some work at WP:COUNCIL in order to sweep for maintenance tags and group the output by project. A weekly sweep might help the project cleanup crews stay on top of this, as well as making the admin work for this process a lot easier. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we want to keep the overhead down, but some of what I'm thinking would be (point by point)

• Tagging would be following by PRODing (in more ways than one) should no improvements be made. If editors insist improvements have been made but another editor disagrees, then it's AFD.
• Purely minimum. No bots. And if there are people doing the same as sniping, hitting an article as PROD/AFD 2weeks to the minute after being up, well, this is a thing of spirit, not word, that should be followed.
• Most likely yes on an AFD patrol. Exactly what to look for depending on the final shape this would take. (this leads to...)
• The reduction in AFD workload will not be apparent immediately, and in fact might increase it initially (there's a bit of activation energy to get this in motion as suggested by an AFD patrol) It depends exactly which way it is taken, though to how much is involved and how fast it could be reduced.
• I'd consider a failed speedy to be the same as the notification, starting the two week process. We'd need to make sure failed speedies are closed with the same notification suggestion so that editors don't sit on it.

And to hit a few other points others have brought above:

• Right now, with the inclusions vs deletionists issue (many which I've seen in the middle of trying to rewrite FICT), the problem is that the 5 day AFD process can be rather WP:BITEy to new editors that may not understand notability or the like. It can be very frustrating to write your first article and see it nominated in an instant for deletion. Or even for experienced editors, while we advocate non-ownership, it's hard not to resent if someone AFDs an article you contributed significantly to. While articles are, from the start, supposed to be written towards our guidelines, most editors do not read them until they are thrown in their face, and a common first reaction is to say "well, that's bogus". Pushing for requesting for improvements before deletion (as already outlined per WP:DEL, just not required) is a much softer blow to newer and established editors alike. Mind you, we need to have weight behind these tags; I'm not proposing that someone partol all articles tagged as lacking notability over a month old and AFD them, but between such cleanup tags and edit histories showing that they've been pretty much ignored (such as in the case of the World of Warcraft character list), it will be clean when the cleanup/notification worked and when it didn't.
• Based on input, I'm really thinking #2 of my suggested (the equivalent {{holdon}} tag) is the way to go, as it involves the least amount of work and creates a person(s) of responsibility to handle the article. AFD partol admits only need to spot this template, speedy close as keep but referring to the person that put up their hand. Now, arguably, I think if a person is representing a group (either a Wikiproject or something like the Article Rescue Squadran) when they do this, this should be noted. Now we can let the article show improvement, which can be by anyone, but if there are no improvements at all and no response from the one or group asking for the holdon after that minimum 2 weeks, then deletion can be called again. Mind you, this cycle could be repeated indefinitely by different people, so I propose that if holdon is used, you get 3 chances: after the first two holdons, if the article is up for deletion again for the same reasons due to any lack of improvement, a holdon no longer works. --MASEM 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting sugestion, and might well work to reduce the bite-ish tendencies of AfD. A couple of thoughts: (1) Is there a risk of an unintended consequence? viz. that we end up with a bunch of poorly-written pages that we think could be improved, but never are improved? That sounds like, effectively, creating another maintenance tag. (2) Instead of calling it 'speedy keep', how about 'temporary keep' or 'conditional keep'? This is because 'speedy delete' is somehow more emphatic than plain 'delete', but in the 'keep' context we wouldn't want to use speedy as an intensifier. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of this suggestion is that we have a template that gets added to such articles, with a date stamp, so that, say, the initial AFD nominator will track it if he so wants, and then renom it for deletion. Technically if no one follows up after this, the article could stay in an unfixed state, but we have that problem already (plenty of article probably in the back corners of the 'pedia that may be in need of improvement), but likely if someone is intent on wanting improvements or deletion of an article, they will be following it. What we call it is whatever is the most comfortable/friendly/etc. --MASEM 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, in fairness we frequently have situations where we think articles could be improved but they aren't. The nice thing about this proposal is that (if carefully done) it a) encourages people to volunteer to actually improve them, and b) provides a more obvious route to deletion if/when it becomes clear that such improvement isn't going to happen. Jakew (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem, the solution is not to change AFD and create some new bureacratic process. The solution is to take portions of policy that do not have consensus and remove them from policy, specifically removing PLOT from NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

there will still be many, many instances where something of this sort might be useful. DGG (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make Stubify a valid !vote option in AFDs. Stubify !votes are for articles which are about a notable topic but are in poor condition (for example, an article about a politician which contains borderline BLP violations). An admin closing an AFD with result Stubify would replace the article with a short, neutral and well-referenced stub, then follow the remaining steps for closing the AFD as Keep. This suggestion would help deal with articles that violate policy and help prevent articles on notable topics from getting deleted, without introducing much additional bureaucracy and process. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the current voting "options" are not listed anywhere, there is nothing stopping you from voting stubify on AfDs. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I encourage editors to !vote Stubify when appropriate and admins to close AFDs with Stubify as the result when appropriate? Merely !voting Stubify on a few AFDs would not do so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Leading by example can be effective. And don't just vote but edit down to a stub yourself. For example, see Wet floor signs. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose this as written, as any 'keep' will be held up as precedent in future AFDs, thereby making the article much harder to delete if it turns out to be genuinely non-notable. I don't think any wording changes that retain the word 'keep' will be able to address that concern. "Speedy no consensus" I could perhaps accept, but really this should be "speedy postpone". Additionally, if an AFD is closed in this way, then tags should be added and the AFD should be reopened after sufficient time has passed - say, a month. Otherwise we lose the main benefit of AFD: it's the only stick that actually works for article improvement. Article tags get removed without discussion; talk pages are largely ignored. Only AFDs lead concerned editors to actually improve pages, and if they can filibuster the AFDs away then the articles will never improve. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Postpone" is the right way to think of this. If an AfD is postponed for improvement and that improvement does not occur, that itself is good evidence that the article is unlikely ever to conform to policy, and should hence be deleted. Jakew (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of an AFD being closed as Postpone, which means that editors are given a month to improve the article and the article will automatically be relisted on AFD a month later to evaluate improvements, if any, to the article and determine whether it should be deleted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Currently I vote Speedy Keep if the nomination seems frivolous or otherwise lacking. If there is a consensus that there is a reasonable doubt then it is open to us to be bold and close the AFD discussion as premature. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision/simplification of suggested approach

Based on comments above, let me tighten down what I think this process could be, keeping it as rule-less as possible mostly based on #2 above,

1. An article gets proposed for deletion through AFD
2. Any (registered?) editor may put in the equivalent of the "holdon" template on the AFD page. This template puts the article's AFD in a category that can be patrolled, and asserts the adding editor to be the key responsible person that will bring the page out of the AFD request (though need not be the only one)
3. AFD partroling admins review such requests to make sure that the article did in fact not get sufficient notification that it was in need of cleanup (erring on the side of caution if its not so obvious from the histories and talk pages), and then closes the AFD as "Postponed", tagging the article with a date-stamped template, including the AFD page and the oldid of the page when the tag was added. The template here adds the page to a another category for postponed AFDs tracked by date.
   1. Such holdon requests, however, should be denied if there has been sufficient notification recently (from 1 to 6 months) on the article, or if the article is as AFD as part of a normal dispute resolution cycle.
4. After two weeks/one month, editors can renominate these postponed AFD articles for AFD, however, they should check against the old version of the article per the template above to see if good faith improvements have been made. If so, another template should be added to say that the article no longer needs to be AFD, tagging the holdon in a fashion to pull it out of the above queues, though keeping the fact it was at AFD albeit shortly.
5. A article that was postponed once to AFD can only be postponed a second time by a different editor if the first editor showed absolutely no effort to improve the article (possibly due to being inactive on WP during that time). If after two postponements and no further improvements are made, this holdon mechanism can no longer be applied to the article.

In this fashion, we only create a series of templates and some categories. The only extra work on AFD admins is to review the article's history before considering if the holdon is appropriate (something they should be doing during any normal AFD closure). The fact we track when articles are postponed allows a mechanism to review such articles after two weeks/one month to enforce that AFD was only a temporary postponement and that some improvements should have been made since. (Note, however, we should not expect perfect articles after this postponed period, only that the key cleanup issues have been reasonably addressed). --MASEM 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is entirely sensible - a single editor can override consensus. Perhaps the AFD should continue, but editors are encouraged to !vote postpone for articles with cleanup issues, and admins should close the AFD as postpone if that's what consensus requires? That's less added bureaucracy but much the same effect without giving ILIKEITs the veto? I also don't think that it should require an editor to reopen postponed AFDs - it should happen automatically, or else we'll end up with thousands of postponed AFDs in limbo. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense that the AfD should continue, but if a postpone !vote is reasonable and realistic, there's no reason why a consensus shouldn't quickly emerge to that effect. After all, encouraging ILIKEITANDIMGOINGTOBRINGITUPTOSTANDARDs can only be good for the encyclopaedia... Jakew (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SNOWBALL would still apply to postpones. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The above assumes that cleanup is the only issue, and AFAIK, cleanup is not a deletion reason. I can see this quickly becoming abused by editors who want to "save" an article from AfD, just like the {{underconstruction}} template is becoming abused by editors to keep new articles from deletion. As much as I'd rather see a potentially good article saved, this doesn't seem like the way to do it.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such proposal. I have seen way too many articles and AfD's where the articles were going to be improved, and were actively worked on, and would be sourced, expanded, improved in the next weeks, but where eventually, after the AfD closed as a keep based on such promises, nothing happened. While this proposal may help to keep a few articles which can be saved, it will also help to keep loads of articles which have no place on Wikipedia either a lot longer or indefinitely here. Every additional bureaucratic step against deletion is helping those who want to keep every bit of no notable trivia on Wikipedia. An example: Lathwal was nominated for deletion in July 2006. Many editors said "keep, will be expanded". Was tagged for expansion in June 2007. No significant improvement has been made on this one line stub (or many similar ones from the same AfD, like Barjati, where a wiki source has been added, and that's about it). Similarly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abercorn Primary School was closed as no consensus because a.o. some defenders claimed that these were stubs to be built upon. A year and a half later, and e.g. St John's Primary School, Newry or St Mary's Primary School, Ballyward have seen no improvements. To make this the default result of AfD's where someone claims that they will improve it is not the way to go. Fram (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that kind of thing, too, and I agree that it's a major problem. I think this proposal would actually help, because instead of closing as keep or no consensus, we're postponing on the basis of an offer to bring the article up to standard within a certain timeframe. If that request is made and no improvement is actually made, that's pretty strong evidence that nobody will ever fix the problems, and that makes the case for deletion much stronger. So yes, we make it easier to keep an article in the short term, but in exchange we also make it easier to delete in the medium term. Jakew (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This also gets rid of the "keep but will cleanup" outcome, replacing it with "postpone to cleanup". Even by choice of wording, this implies that cleanups are expected in order to rid the concerns that the article is deletion-worthy, and that this period of time is not indefinite. Ok, there's a case where someone may postpone an AFD, do a minimum amount of cleanup to satisfy the original concerns, and then no further improvement is made, but if we at least suggest that articles that have AFDs postponed should come out clearly showing that the original concern of the AFD is no longer present, then we prevent articles from simply festering over time in the AFD process. --MASEM 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If articles get to hang around in stubby form, this is not a problem. Those who complain above that articles don't get improved are invited to improve the ones that they care about per WP:SOFIXIT. What is infuriating about AFD is that you get plenty of editors quite willing to pontificate and not so many prepared to roll their sleeves up and do some work. I have just added a source to the Lathwal article and it took just a minute. Those who have spent longer complaining about the article instead are wasting everyone's time. Our process improvement should put more onus upon the critics to do some work themselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How about every deletion nomination is accompanied by a template that takes in a parameter and then provides links to a web search, an all dates news search, a book search, and a scholar search (if that's not to google centric). Maybe muptiple parameters so some searches could use quotes and whatnot. It wouldn't cause the nominator much effort and would probably prevent a number of bad noms and speed up the process for correct noms. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like {{subst:prod-nn}}? – sgeureka ^t•c 08:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar to that, but on the AfD page not on the article itself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In general, having the AFD nominator perform some attempt to improve the work or show notability or whatnot before nominating is not a bad idea, as it would promote drive-by AFDs, however, that also rubs against WP's general spirit of volunteerism and that no one is forced to do anything anything they don't want, particularly if they are not an expert on the topic at hand. This certainly has been one of the sources of controversy of late. This is sort of why the first approach in my initial suggestion above points to having some responsibility on the nominator to show that they have tried to inform the article editors of the reason for failure; it's not the same, but at least makes it a tad harder for drive-by nominations to be accepted.

A fundamental point to this suggestion is that AFD should not be the first place where an article's merits and quality are brought up. AFD is part of the dispute resolution process, and typically the end of the road for such: if the editors and other involved parties cannot reach an agreement on how an article can be handled, one ultimate fate that the article should be deleted or merged, then AFD helps to get a wider audience to talk about it. But drive-by AFDs that simply find articles written badly or lacking notability is jumping the gun in resolving it, which is why some mechanism needs to be in place that if the AFD is truly the first time the editors of the page are aware of an issue with the page, they should be able to pull the article out from AFD to correct it, a more proper approach to dispute resolution. --MASEM 09:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be a terrible idea, but it can't hurt to suggest it: would an (optional, at editors' discretion) pre-afd tag be helpful here, outlining the serious problems with an article, and stating that it will be listed, say, one month later (re Peregrine's suggestion, such a tag could include {{findsources}}, which would assist editors)? It would be fairly easy to scan categories and pick up articles that have (and have not) been edited since tagging, and list accordingly — indeed, some of this work could perhaps be done by a bot. Jakew (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)My suggestion on this is as follows:

• Each project has (or should have) a cleanup crew. WP:COUNCIL, specifically B. Wolterding have been developing a bot to go through all maintenance tags and produce output lists by project. He's done it in the past for notability tags, which we're currently crunching through, so it's entirely feasible it could be done for other maintenance tags as well. The bot could be run daily or weekly in order to pick up articles that have been tagged. New articles should be project tagged by the project's new articles crew.
• The cleanup crew should, after a set period of time, prod anything that can't be stubified/cleaned up to make it suitable to keep. If it's been prodded before, or AfD'd before, it should be AfD'd instead per WP:PROD. If the prod remains (and a large number do) then it is deleted. If it is contested, then we mention our concerns on the talk page, with a view to holding AfD further down the line if there is no change.
• AfD process continues per Masem.

The key point being, with a few tools, the cleanup crews would have the mechanisms needed to respond to maintenance tags in a timely fashion. I agree that articles should not remain in maint-tag-limbo forever and that we do need a process that spits out eiter sourced, cleaned articles or deletions depending on what's possible. What it would also prevent is a collection of articles in the same field or special interest area being tagged for AfD at the same time, stretching the number of editors available to resolve issues. I agree with some of the earlier comments that it should be possible to resolve most articles within five days, but this relies on only having one article to repair. If there are five or six (as has happened in the past), then editors have a large amount of sourcing to do in those five days, something which is at best unreasonable to ask. The other result from this process will be that editors will understand that maintenance tags will lead to deletion eventually, as articles move through the process, and cannot be ignored indefinately.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The only tag I could possibly support doing this for is {{notability}}, and then only if major contributors get notified far enough in advance to give infrequent editors a chance to figure out what they need to do. I can't think of any other common maintenance tag that would be a valid deletion reason. --Fabrictramp (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen cleanup tags really do much. Maybe tags like the episode version of {{notability}} would work better if it had {{findsources}} rolled into it and a link to a FA that's similar to the article. Personally, I didn't start adding references to articles until around my 5,000th edit. People usually replicate what they've seen before, and references arent' really that common yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Several maintenance tags that may express valid reasons for deletion spring to mind, for example {{originalresearch}}, {{unsourced}}, {{primarysources}}, {{hoax}}, and {{neologism}}. Jakew (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a different experience with this -- one of my very first edits to wikipedia was because an article I was reading had a {{fact}} tag and I knew where to find the ref. It never would have occurred to me to add the ref if the {{fact}} tag hadn't been there. Soon after that, I came across an article with a {{wikify}} tag and I decided to figure out what that meant. Then I found the DEP and it all went downhill from there. ;-) --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What I've noticed is that the only time I see perpetual articles in poor shape being improved is when I happen to afd them. Speedying ones that need cleanup is a terrible idea, as it just leaves the article in a poor state for years. Wizardman 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard AfD isn't for cleanup but it really is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there are multiple viewpoints about "bad" content. Most agree that it's undesirable for poor articles to remain that way indefinitely. However, some view the situation as basically harmless, and view deletion as more harmful than leaving it as it is. Others view the situation as damaging the credibility of the encyclopaedia as a whole, and view deletion as a reasonable fix. Under normal circumstances, the general approach at the article level is to leave it and hope that someone fixes it (interestingly, this is more or less the opposite of that implied by WP:BURDEN). But in an AfD, the situation is often reversed, changing the situation from "hmm, I see we have a tag on the article, how interesting" to "do I care enough about the existence of this article to fix the problems".

I'm not saying that this situation is right, or proper. I'm just saying that it's understandable when you think about the different viewpoints of those involved. Jakew (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Jakew.

Yes, I do understand that often an AfD is what prompts a cleanup. I just hate to see it encouraged. I'd rather encourage WP:SOFIXIT, but that view isn't shared by everyone. --Fabrictramp (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like deleting articles is addictive. I know from personal experience that saving AfD articles with references is addictive. I think it's because it's like a game and you can "win." I don't think cleaning up articles with tags is addictive, but if it is it isn't addictive enough to make a dent in the number of tagged articles. People just work on articles they're interested in unless prompted by an AfD. I wish there was some way to get some article improvement (adding content) out of the people who love to delete, but I wouldn't know how since it's volunteer work. This must have come up before, what were some previous ideas? Improving articles gives one a better sense of what should be AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Do people get barnstars for article cleanup? We have barnstars for producing good quality work, or for deleting content, but I'm not sure if there's anything for for citing and sourcing an article but no more. Could be wrong though Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion

In the above section, I suggested a kind of "pre-afd" tag. It may well be a terrible idea, but anyway here's a rough sketch of the kind of thing I had in mind:

My idea is that such a tag could be added, at the nominator's discretion, some time before listing at AfD.

My rationale is as follows. First, this would help to address the WP:BITEy issues of AfDing a recently-created article. It gives editors a reasonable amount of time for addressing the specific issues, and familiarising themselves with applicable policies and guidelines. Second, it allows the nominator to specify the particular issues affecting the article, which may be more explanatory than a standard tag. Third, if the possibility of deletion is an incentive to fix problems, then let's be open about that possibility before we even list the article at AfD. We might be able to avoid AfD altogether in many cases. Finally, this is a minimal suggestion, requiring the creation of a template and a category, and I'm not suggesting any far-reaching changes to the deletion process. Jakew (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That might instigate some cleanup. We don't need to change anything about the deletion process do we? What if someone wants to AfD before then. Someone besides the original tagger. I think a link to a FA would be a quick way to show someone what they're going for. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need to change the actual deletion process. It would probably be sensible to document the option in a few deletion-related pages ("consider whether adding a pre-deletion notice is appropriate"), but I can't see any changes to the process itself.

Hmm. What if someone wants to AfD beforehand? Well, it may be that there's a very good reason for doing so (BLP/copyright/hoax issues, etc), so I think it would be unwise to explicitly recommend against it. On the other hand, I would hope that people will honour the delay unless there is a good reason. I'm tempted to suggest that we can rely on common sense here, and there's no need for instruction creep; what do you think?

Finally, I like the idea of linking to an FA (as long as we don't intimidate new editors into thinking that it must be FA-quality or it gets deleted!), but I think it would only work if it were on a comparable subject, so maybe it should be an optional template parameter? Jakew (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A good example of what this process would try to prevent

(In no way am I trying to support keeping or removing said article , or enforcing or discouraging any editor involved in this so far-- it just happens to be a convinent current example). This article was put up for AFD without previously having any tags to explain why it needed clearup or to be deleted. The AFD discussion is already rather heavy in anger. (However, I will note that there may have been prior discussion based on this WP Video Games discussion, and TTN to some degree appears involved.) Here's a case where I think a postpone suggestion would help a lot - those interested in keeping in would be able to go out and find sources (which I feel will be difficult to find here). --MASEM 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Applying a little creative (if not actually devious) thinking here, relisting is already a part of the AfD process, so — although unconventional — it wouldn't be completely inappropriate to !vote "relist in one month". I'm just wondering: what would happen if someone were to suggest it, and consensus were to back the suggestion? Jakew (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I like that last one of saying relist in one month as a possible result. It has the advantage of not adding any elaborate process or confusion. Everything else here is much too complicated.DGG (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This would work, as long as 1) it's for cases exactly like there where there has been no attempt or notification of the article needed improvement or other similar cases and 2) the resulting closing admin drops a template to be made similar to the one above that identifies what needs to be fixed and that the article may be relisted after a month if these aren't addressed. --MASEM 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In the event that we can get some consensus for this, I'll gladly volunteer to work on the template, categories, etc. Jakew (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomophobia was another good example. It was brought to AfD, I added a few sources, and the nominator withdrew. The fact that such nominations occur is a big problem with the AfD process. Something needs to be done to get people to improve articles rather than try to delete them. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Something needs to be done to get people to improve articles rather than try to delete them." - I agree with you. That's one of the great unsolved mysteries of Wikipedia - how to get better articles. "The fact that such nominations occur is a big problem with the AfD process." - I disagree with you. Sometimes an article simply has to go to AfD before the article's creators and advocates take its sourcing seriously. I personally started at Wikipedia because one article I liked got deleted for lack of sources. If people care for certain articles, and they have become familiar with the article guidelines, there's nothing stopping them from improving things here and there. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If it was a little harder to start an Afd then less time would be spent doing them and therefore a bit more time improving articles. Most Afd's I reply to take about 10 minutes of my time(not counting those that take time but I don't reply to!), that's even without time on secondary arguments. I think if you multiple that by say about 6 people that reply then each Afd is consuming about 1 hour or editors time. I think anyone raising an Afd, should have to do some real checking before using that 1 hour of other editors time, which could be spent improving articles. SunCreator (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Further simplification

Ok, let me make this as simple as possible that does very little to change the current AFD procedure: simply that "Postpone" is a valid !vote to use for AFD debates. A "postpone" !vote should carry more weight than other comments during AFD, though the need to postpone should be reduced and/or ignored if

• The article has been given sufficient warning (> 1 month) before about needed to cleanup before deletion, and thus postponing will likely not affect how the current editors will improve the article.
• The article has been postponed from deletion once before (within the last 6 months)

Other editors should be free to respond and discuss if postponing makes sense, but barring the above two cases, postponement should always receive the benefit of the doubt over other arguments.

If an AFD closes with "postpone" , then the closing admin will put a template on the article page, stating that:

• The article was proposed for deletion (linking to the AFD) but postponed to allow cleanup
• The article needs these specific areas of cleanup (list as best understood from the AFD debate)
• The article, after (afd closing date + 1 month), the article still has not been improved (permalink to this version provided for comparison), the article may be relisted at AFD. It should be noted that we are not expecting perfection in one month, just addressing the key issues from the original AFD to show they can be improved on.

Now, I will admit this doesn't solve the pipeline issue in that editors are still free to AFD things without notification, but it should be observed that if an editor continues to press non-notified articles to AFD which always end up postponed, and which always end up being improved on (not resubmitted or surviving the second AFD as a straight "keep" !vote), then this editor should be cautioned against sending articles to AFD without first attempting to work with the editors of it. I cannot see how this can be made into a block or other such enforcement, though I'd argue there's point where doing this too much is violating the assumption of good faith. --MASEM 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's much better better, but I don't agree that a "postpone" !vote should carry any more or less weight simply because it's a "postpone" !vote - the weight it carries will be determined by the strength of the argument presented with the !vote. That said, there are already a lot of strong arguments for postponing, so they often will carry more weight in forming consensus. Additionally, I don't think articles should ever be left in the postpone limbo. What should happen is that 1 month after an AFD is postponed, the AFD is reopened and the participants notified. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mean that "postpone" should carry more weight in that even in the face of strong "delete" !votes that someone is in good faith asking for postponement, due to the fact they're only been given the 5 days to fix it, it should be granted. As for opening up postponed articles for the second AFD, it will be simple to add articles with the suggested template to a category that can be tracked by editors who can review what improvements there have been and put the article to AFD again, as procedure (of course linking the previous AFD to compare again). Actually, I'd almost say we would need such a duty squad as the above template should not be removed until it is removed by someone on "postponed AFD patrol", either because it has improved and needs not to go to AFD, or that it is going back to AFD. --MASEM 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have much of a problem with a postponement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional universe of Carnivàle, which was in late August 2007 (in the end, the AfD just forced me to think on the spot, instead of allowing me time to explore other options with the presentation of subtopic content). I'd argue that the problem is not postponement, but finding volunteers to improve the article. And I can't think of a case at the moment where no-one volunteered but the article still miraculously improved in the next month. So postponement requests should only counted in combination with a volunteer/group of volunteers. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, postponement is only reasonable if it's likely that the article will be improved, not just if it can be improved. Percy Snoodle (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What if it was stated that a "postpone" !vote would also be taken as responsibility for actually dealing with it? This shouldn't necessarily be a "pass the buck" situation, where someone !votes "postpone" and then lets, say, a WP or the Article Rescue Squadron deal with it. However, let's say I call "postpone", and it's granted, but for some reason over the month I can't get to it or any other editing on WP; on the second call to AFD, it would be fair for someone else to call "postpone" to step in. However, if the month passes, and I've been editing a mad fool elsewhere on WP and ignoring the postponed article, then calling a postpone again would not be appropriate. I would recommend that just as we do deletion sorting on entry in AFD, postponed AFDs should be sorted as well, hopefully altering appropriate projects to help step in to correct it. --MASEM 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we need to be thinking about "relist in one month to give me a chance to fix it, on the basis of (for example) sources that I expect to be able to find in 19th century newspaper archives". That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, in my opinion, and I suspect that if someone were to make such a request, it would probably be considered. I can see three obstacles, however: 1) it's an unorthodox !vote, and people (including the closer) might not know how to respond; 2) people trying to save an article might not think of it, or might be intimidated by the process itself; 3) there's no infrastructure (templates, categories) in place for tracking postponed AfDs. Tackling these in reverse order, (3) is relatively easy to solve, (2) could be addressed with a little editing to WP pages and perhaps the AfD template, and (1) is the most difficult to address, because it involves changing process & associated policies & guidelines. I suspect that the "path of least resistance" to (1) will involve minimal changes, leaving decisions about the appropriateness of postpones, etc, to consensus in each AfD, at least for the time being. But I may be wrong. Jakew (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The first obstacle is just a matter of getting the word out; if this idea is accepted, and we make sure to announce it to the usual places; as long as there's a regular crowd that patrols AFD, the use of "postpone" would be made apparent, along with helping to hint to users that may not know about it that it is an option available to them. (WP:POSTPONE is nicely free for this, this would be a good place to have the tracking and the like all grouped together.) --MASEM 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the onus should be on the postponing requester to either carry out the rework themselves or coordinate a team of editors to carry out cleanup. I also agree that a postponing request should carry more weight for out-of-the-blue AfDs than ones in maintenance-tag-limbo. Finally, I'm beginning to come to terms with the idea that maintenance-tag handling should be examined as a seperate piece of work that should dovetail into this one instead of loading it on to the front end. I still think that we could use some bots to help out with this and deliver some benefits in tracking and grouping articles with maintenance tags by project, but I'm willing to put that discussion on hold.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's best to tackle the problem at both ends. If an article enters AfD too soon, then promoting a postpone option should help a lot. At the other "end", pre-deletion notices could help to reduce the likelihood of articles entering AfD too soon, and indeed may help avoid AfD at all. Jakew (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, writing and then promoting WP:POSTPONE, especially among admins, sounds like the way forward. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding situations where you !vote "postpone" and then don't touch the article for more than a month, and as a result the article is deleted when the AFD is reopened: that's not really a problem. If the article is deleted, but you have the will and the means to improve it, then the thing to do is to contact the closing admin, get a userified copy, bring it up to spec, and recreate the article. If the issues that led to its deletion in the first place are resolved, then it won't be instantly redeleted. I don't see this as being so common an event that the overhead on the admins is prohibited. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Postponed Deletion as a point to develop this concept further since there seems to be some legs to it. --MASEM 15:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I still think that the AFDs should be reopened automatically, but since that would require a bot or considerable admin overhead, I'm happy to wait for v2. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I have nothing to criticize in the wording or the proposed process. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)