Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 50

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 45 ← Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 → Archive 55

need some input

Because of the way this AfD is going, I have re-opened this old discussion to determine if a separate guideline is needed for these types of articles, as suggested by the keep voters. Any and all input would be helpful. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

back to basics: a rename and that's all

Over two days, I've seen a simple proposal become drastically bloated. How does a simple idea turn into a huge essay? Sometimes I think people are actually TRYING to avoid a consensus. Consensus is built by finding the lowest common denominator that everyone can live with. Consensus is built by making one change at a time. When you stack a dozen different ideas into one huge heaping mound of reform, you hit a brick wall. One amendment pisses off one group of people, another amendment pisses off another group, and then there are the people who get pissed off just because there are too many confusing amendments. Are we going to be happy that people are basically okay with one simple idea, or are we going to derail this by piling on every single proposal that has reached no consensus in the past year? If everyone agrees to go to a steakhouse, you don't sit around and starve while you argue about what movie you're going to see. You eat the damn steak.

Get back to basics.

  • There seems to be support to rename "articles for deletion" to "articles for discussion". That's all.

The rationale:

  • It basically preserves the AFD process, but emphasizes outcomes and compromises other than deletion (e.g.: merging, redirecting)
  • WP:POLICY follows practice, and in practice AFDs can result in something other than deletion when people collaborate and look for middle ground.
  • It's less WP:BITEy to new users, as it doesn't treat deletion as a foregone conclusion.
  • It's consistent with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Does anyone have a reason why we shouldn't do this -- besides "I don't actually have any reason to oppose this, I just think it would be better if we did X, Y, and Z"? (This is a discussion, not a vote.) Randomran (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I would prefer if all xfDs had the same D, even if for some the only outcomes are keep or delete. For images, for example, the outcomes are keep, shrink-for-fairuse, transwiki to commons, or delete. For templates, it's keep or a variety of ways to change up the template's uses prior to deletion. For redirects its keep, delete, or retarget. I may have left some options out. If we want to change xfD to be Discussion wiki-wide, this needs to be discussed in a more central location. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So take it to WP:VPP or WP:VPR and list on T:CENT? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this makes sense, but even then I worry about bloating the proposal. If we're going to change the other XFDs, lets do that at the appropriate discussion pages, and deal with them separately. People may have legitimate reasons for rejecting those, but that wouldn't stop them from accepting a change at AFD. Randomran (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • What random said. As far as I can see, the impact of this name change (if there is an impact) would be to allow mergers and redirects at AfD explicitly. That is probably not what some people would like to see. Without that, I can't think of a reason we would undertake the effort of further changing the name. Before we list this places, I would recommend that people do some thinking about the implications of merging articles at AfD (on a broad scale). I'm ok with it, but others may not be. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The fundamental trouble with this is that we need to distinguish between the role of AfD versus the role of the article talk page. AfD means two things to me: it's a means for opening and advertising an inclusive discussion about whether and how an article should be included, and it's also a request for admin action, if necessary. The "deletion" comes from this latter component: although conventionally admins close all AfD discussions, the request for admin action is unnecessary unless deletion is in fact the conclusion. The name "discussion" doesn't convey this aspect as clearly - it suggests that someone could bring discussions here that cannot end in deletion and properly belong on talk pages, like questions of organization or sources. There might be value in allowing that, but if that's not the objective let's not give the wrong impression. Dcoetzee 13:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with the concern, and one of reasons I'm hesitant on a full AFDiscussion proposal is to make sure the usual dispute resolution process is not changed. That said, when you say "Articles for discussion", this (hopefully) implies that the majority of the article is presently at issue instead of sections or specific details. That is, if the dispute is over a few points on an article but ultimately doesn't really change if the article should exist or not, it should be persued on the article's talk page with any dispute resolutions moving towards RFC to help resolve. But if the article itself is hanging on being salvagable or not due to major issues in cleanup, lacking notability, or whatever, that's the article level discussion and should be brought here. This difference would need to be made clear (and thus allowing speedy closure of those nominations that should be at the talk page only.) --MASEM 13:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that changes anything. An "AFDiscussion" would still call for exactly what you said: "admin action, if necessary". It sounds like we would just need to make this crystal clear. AFD would still only be for articles where there is a good faith belief that there shouldn't be a stand-alone article here. (e.g.: not for problems that can be resolved by improving the article.) Randomran (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • When do you plan to list it on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and Template:Cent? I have found that editors who enforce policy usually gravitate toward the policy pages they are enforcing. In other words, most of the editors who frequently comment here are supportive of the status quo "Articles for deletion". I suspect that the larger community as a whole will be much more supportive of a name change. Thanks.travb (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the idea of putting together an RfC proposal based on Randomran's post above. AfD reform is likely to be a slow, agonzing process, and may be best done in baby steps. Consider the other things we have proposed as other things to try if/when the first step of a name change gets community support. If the name change works, and we get a little more documentation in there to support the Keep-->Improve-->Merge-->Redirect-->Userfy-->Delete priority tree on articles which are not total junk, then the rest of it may resolve on its own in time. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While I generally agree with the basis of Randomran's points, I disagree that this name change will ameliorate them without unintended consequences. Flatscan (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge, redirect outcomes are common. Merge nominations lacking a rationale to delete are generally discouraged and usually speedy kept. Adding to Protonk's comments, the name change may encourage both nominations and outcomes. Nominations that are substantially merge-focused have a better chance if some dispute resolution has been attempted first. I'm more-or-less satisfied with the existing barriers to entry, and I have reservations with reducing them.
    • While "deletion" may be BITEy, it is critical that new contributors realize that deletion is a possible outcome of AfD. While this can be accomplished with a scary template, I think "discussion" dilutes the message somewhat.
    • Concerns raised by Dcoetzee: The terms "deletion" and "discussion" are an Accuracy and precision problem. "Deletion" is a more precise term – I think it's acceptable when considered using the "stand-alone article" criteria – but there are concerns that it is unacceptably inaccurate. "Discussion" covers everything.
    Flatscan (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think the vaguer name will be more confusing to new editors, that this "fig leaf" won't address the actual concerns of the proposers, and furthermore that it will be widely rejected by the community at large, thus making it a waste of time and resources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This cannot work without changes to deletion policies and guidelines, and I remain unconvinced that such changes would not be prescriptive (remember, policies and guidelines are descriptive). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support A name change would be a good first step in any reform that would be done, and it would imply that "merge" and "redirect" results are more acceptable in general... quite a few articles that are deleted seem like they could be merged, so having that as a more common option would be good. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As BOZ admits, this is the opening wedge in an inclusionist effort to prevent and marginalize Deletions. Agree with Flatscan and Dcoetzee - AfDeletion is honest about what can happen. If anything, this should push editors to prove notability in articles where that can be proved. ThuranX (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This helps promote wikipedia's Growth and prosperity instead of individual editor's feelings. Hooper (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: A name change involves renaming tens of thousands of pages. I should know (hint). The last time we did this, we thought it through carefully. It's a lot of work, and it doesn't stop with just the page moves. I see no evidence that anyone is considering the consequences this time around. I suggest that you all go back to the 2005 archives of this talk page and read. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: less hassle for all

This is what I would propose (based on some of my previous comments a long way above). (This is instruction retreat and should therefore be supported by everyone who always opposes instruction creep.)

  1. Abandon AfD altogether (leave just new instructions here).
  2. All non-speedy delete nominations start with a prod.
  3. If someone contests a prod, discussion then continues on the article talk page, under a template called {{prod contested}} or something similar.
  4. When someone believes that consensus has been reached to delete, replace the template with a new template called {{ready for delete}} or whatever, to summon an admin to decide if that really is the appropriate action, and if so, to take it.

Advantages:

  • Easier for nominators: no need to go through the bureaucracy of AfD.
  • Easier for people with interest in a page to find current and past deletion discussions concerning that page.
  • No artificial split (in terms of talk venue) between deletion discussions and other discussions about improving the article, which often will - and should - overlap in scope.
  • Just as easy to find current lists of proposed/requested deletions - these would be generated as categories or by bots.

Disadvantages:

  • Not clear what to do with the talk page of a deleted page, if the deletion discussion is to be preserved (rename? leave where it is for a bot to tidy?)

Please comment below.--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:Interesting. I personally think that it is a great idea. A few comments:
  1. The deletion discussions could probably be put in a subpage of the talk page and be exempted from WP:CSD#G8.
  2. The PROD system would probably need a bit of a redesign so that there is a more comprehensive list so that people can see and comment on them, and notifying the article's creator and significant contributors of a PROD should be required.
-Drilnoth (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) After seeing comments below, I'm pretty much neutral on this issue. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: if only because I'm not sure how this helps the situation at all. If anything it's a step backwards, because it makes it difficult to resolve a dispute. AFDs are useful because they solicit wide, independent feedback. Or at least wider than you might get in a one-on-one conversation between editors. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose With apologies to Kotniski, this is too revolutionary for our needs- I do not think AfD is irrevocably broken. Moreover, I agree with Randomran that this is a step backwards. We currently use the AfD page similarly to how WP:VPP and T:CENT are used- to provide a method for people interested in these sorts of affairs to congregate. The fix for this, of course, would be to maintain a central listing of all articles currently transcluding the new PROD template. Similarly, the fix for the problem of maintaining the deletion discussion would be to list it on a separate subpage outside of the article/talk namespace. This is all exactly what the current AfD pages do, and more (list nominations by date of listing, provide categorization, etc). At best, this would work out like turning AfD into WP:RM, which I definitely do not agree with. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, PROD as it stands is intended for non-controversial deletion. An AfD with no comments gets relisted, but if there is no central listing, will an unopposed neo-PROD be deleted? I should hope not- I have at times nominated articles for deletion where I wasn't 100% confident that my interpretation of notability guidelines was correct. And in my opinion, rightly so- this is the very purpose of AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a step too far. Despite my dislike of deletionism as an ideology and my concerns about how AfD operates at present, I admit that there are a lot of hopeless articles. If discussions that may lead to deletion are held at article's Talk pages, there will be edit / revert wars over the "up for deletion" template / categorisation / whatever. --Philcha (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Maybe I didn't explain very well. There is no reason why this would mean people couldn't find the discussions. (That's all AfD does at the moment - it's a listing of discussions, not a place to discuss.) Effectively I'm saying two things: (a) the task of placing such discussions on the central list should be performed by a bot and/or the software's categorization function rather than manually by the nominators; (b) the discussion should take place on the article talk page instead of a separate page. I don't think anyone would quarrel with (a) if it could be got to work - why make extra work for ourselves? And as to (b), I accept it makes it slightly more awkward for the closing admin to know what to do with the talk page, that's a problem that can be quite easily solved in a number of ways. Other than that it's surely highly desirable to keep the discussion on the same page as other discussions concerning improvement of the article - they might actually be covering the same ground, and people in one discussion might not be aware of the other if they're in different places.
As to the question of the unopposed neo-PROD - it becomes a neo-PROD only by virtue of being opposed, so I don't think the situation can arise (if I'm understanding you right). If you are not sure when you nominate, you could express your doubts when you place the prod tag, or place the contested template yourself. Admins should never delete anything blindly, even an unopposed prod.
And about the edit-warring over tags - I accept that's a possibility, but the rules would be fairly clear-cut (you can't remove someone else's tag, only convert prod to a contested prod). If the rules are broken (as they can be at the moment, with AfD tag removal) then the matter can be reported and quickly dealt with. We shouldn't assume from the outset that people are going to act in bad faith.--Kotniski (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how this is all that different from the current system in that case- all we'd be doing is pushing discussion to article talk pages. Why not just automatically transclude AfDs to article talk pages? And if there's improvement going on at the article talk page, frankly, it would be foolish for a nominator to ignore any discussion already present at the talk page, and remiss of a closing admin to not consider comments left at the talk page since the AfD starts.
Right, so let's get them on the same page to make sure that everyone, including all those !voting for/against deletion, is aware of what's going on.--Kotniski (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the neo-PROD business now. What I meant to ask was that, if someone nominates an article for deletion, what happens if nobody contests it? Do we just delete like a current PROD? Admins likely won't delete it blindly if it's blatantly apparent the nominator's rationale is incorrect or controversial, but I question whether a closing admin will go through and perform the sort of extensive "sanity check" WhatamIdoing performed above. After all, the admin's purpose in the current process is to determine whether consensus exists, not to make a !vote (or in the case of PROD, whether it really is uncontroversial). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, you could still do a PROD like you can now. If you like, we can just say "AfD" in place of contested prod. So if you want to do an AfD nomination like now, because you're not confident enough to prod it, you could still do that too. It would simply be a whole lot easier, because you can just place a single tag on the article and start off the discussion on the talk page, not go through the current rigmarole.--Kotniski (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Another alternative: Roll Proposed Mergers into AfD with an overall rename

One thing that I see on occasion is an AfD filed where the request is to merge and redirect an article to another. While M&R is occasionally a result of AfD, nominations explicitly requesting it are frequently closed as speedy keep. However, WP:PM, the proper venue for this, doesn't get nearly the traffic that AfD or even requested moves.

I think it worth considering rolling these two together, and call the result "Article Mergers and Deletions" (or similar). I think this is a similar move to the recent combination of SSP and RFCU into WP:SPI. The initial effect of this would be to permit discussions requesting mergers- these sorts of discussions would be structured like AfDs, and would focus on whether a merger is a good idea rather than how it should be conducted. If consensus to merge is found, the closing admin would perform it if it's a trivial merge. If it's non-trivial, then discussion on how the merger should be done goes on the talk page.

I don't believe there would need to be significant changes in WP:DELETE to bring this about, but WP:DELPRO might need significant revision. Of course it would also require several changes to various essays on how AfD works. But I don't believe that requires significant consideration as essays aren't at all binding, and a use of an outdated suggestion or observation contained therein would be quickly discounted.

I know this isn't a trivial change, but I consider it more of an evolution of AfD rather than a revolutionary restructuring of how the process works. I think it would both eliminate the deletion-only focus of AfD (over time) as well as get merger proposals taken care of in a more timely fashion. Any thoughts? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, although I think that Articles for Discussion would be a better name. I hadn't even known that WP:PM existed until I saw it somewhere in the discussion above. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • In my experience, many people haven't heard of it. In one case, I requested Leon Phelps be merged on July 24th, but it wasn't completed until someone BOLDly did so on December 31st. As to the name, my problem with "Articles for Discussion" is that the "discussion" can be construed as simple discussion, when the focus of even the merged system would be on consolidating or otherwise removing articles. At this stage, I think we should continue to "tell it like it is". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Good point. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I said it above, and I say it again: Anything that adds load to AFD is a bad idea. Leave AFD to deal with deletion, as the name suggests. Moreover, as I also said, it's a bad idea to apply the timescale of AFD to a merger discussion, or make it appear that only administrators can do mergers. Anyone can do a merger. Even an editor without an account can perform a requested merger, or a merger that xe thinks to be appropriate; or can assist other editors with a merger. And that is a good thing. You can do a merger. You could have done the mergers that you requested. If the problem that you want fixed is that the mergers you request don't get done, then the solution is to do the mergers that you want done, yourself. {{sofixit}} applies. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose I've seen a few merger debates, some ending "yes" and others "no", and this is the first I've heard of WP:PM. Since AfD is the only "non-emergency" way to get articles deleted while mergers get closed one way or another without WP:PM, I think combining AfD and WP:PM would just cause confusion. I also think this misses the main problem, that in practice AfD focusses too much on deleting rather than improving articles. --Philcha (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that improvement should be the focus of AfD. It's a place to have debates on how policy and guidelines should apply to articles. While it sometimes results in improvement, I believe that is and should remain secondary. Article improvement is currently done at the talk page, and we already have mechanisms such as WP:PR and various WikiProjects to permit the enlistment of help in improving articles. Changing AfD into an improvement mechanism in order to harvest its userbase would just drive away the userbase. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Ideally "Article improvement is currently done at the talk page", but for new artciles, which seem most likely to appear at AfD, there' been little time for people to notice and suggest improvements. In any case AfD is bound by WP:DELETE, which says (all together now!) ... --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is more of a bailout package for WP:PM than an improvement for AfD. From the start, I was under the impression that the intention for revamp was to change the image of and approach towards deletion debate. But how does combining PM with AfD really help it in anyway? LeaveSleaves 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • My thoughts are that an attitude change will come through allowing non-deletion discussions here. I strongly believe that gradual change is necessary to maintain the existing group of AfD volunteers. As to changing the image of deletion discussions, I don't think this is possible without there being actual change in how things are carried out. In other words, this is not something we can do overnight. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, we've never not had the attitude of working on improving articles if someone comes up with an idea. Indeed, that happened just yesterday at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruskets. You are addressing a non-problem. The current problems with AFD are mainly to do with lack of effort in rationales (by both nominators and other participants), discussions being closed far too early, and very few people revisiting even the discussions that they have themselves participated in (leaving well-intentioned novices talking to an empty room). None of those are in any way to do with extending AFD to encompass non-deletion tasks, and indeed several of them will only be worsened by a lack of focus.

        But all of them can be addressed by you, and any other editor who wants to improve AFD, doing some AFD patrol. Participate in some 4-day-old discussions. Encourage people to actually reference and use our policies and guidelines in their rationales. Supply some proper policy-based rationales yourselves in deletion discussions. Make the discussions actually discussions. Tell novice editors what to do to make good arguments that will hold water. Do some article rescues. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning oppose, but I am receptive to further discussion. It would be nice to have centralized merger discussions with wide participation, but I see little general demand (i.e., in topics outside of WP:FICT). As I wrote above, I have reservations with making merge nominations at AfD easier. I also share the concerns that combining the processes would lead to confusion and inefficiency. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand why we have this obsession with maintaining bureaucractic process in these areas. All discussion about what to do with a particular article - improve, merge, delete, redirect,... - could simply take place on that article's talk page (obviously if it concerns more than one article it should be in one place with links from the others). There can be noticeboards for anyone to advertise any discussions that they believe need wider input. If an admin is required - to adjudicate disputed consensus and/or to take administrative action - they can be summoned by a template. No need to keep particular kinds of discussion separate or treat them in different ways - they all have the basic aim of improving the encyclopedia through exchange of views and observations, and anyway no-one can predict the possible outcomes when the discussion starts. --Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And my last moan for the moment: there's a real technical weakness in the way deletion discussions and others of that type are currently conducted, particularly (but not only) if the discussion is kept artificially separate from normal talk-page discussion. Namely, people are in the habit of prefacing their views with a bold-face !vote/recommendation, but this can only apply to their state of mind - and the state of the article - at the moment they place their vote. Often people don't retain interest in a discussion they've contributed to (and some are loathe ever to admit to having been wrong), so we have no way of knowing whether all !votes !cast remain valid when the time comes to close the discussion - when the article might be in a quite different state or new arguments or proposals might have been put forward. The closing admin ought to examine the arguments and their validity, but the current system seems to encourage them to count votes more blindly than they should. --Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Kotniski makes a couple of good points:

      "the discussion is kept artificially separate from normal talk-page discussion". Could that be resolved by making it standard procedure to transclude the AfD discussion into the article's Talk page, as is standard with GA reviews?

      Should the closing admin's verdict be required to include "I have examined the current version of article"? --Philcha (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

      • Possibly, but transclusion confuses people (they think they're watching a page when they're not, for example), and there's no need for such complicated solutions when the discussion can simply be HELD on the talk page as anyone would reasonably expect.

        Hmm, I don't think such formal requirements are the way forward. It would be a poor sort of admin who deleted something without looking at what s/he was deleting - and making them write out a sentence confirming it every time would just waste their time. --Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

      • The closing administrator's rationale should, for best results, at least provide some explanation of how the decision was arrived at. The decisions that tend to provoke the most fuss at Deletion Review are the ones where the closing administrator has said nothing more than "the decision was X", by adding {{afd top}} and not writing anything more. A wise closing administrator avoids such problems in advance, by actually explaining the closure. But some closing administrators have yet to learn from negative experience on this matter, unfortunately. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The idea that the rationales are there to help the closing administrator to reach a decision in the event that an article changes during discussion has been in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion since day one, along with encouragement to show your working when contributing to a discussion. And that's how the "weakness" is already addressed. A good rationale beats a raw "vote", and it's explained to people on the way in.

      You are, again, addressing a non-problem. Many closing administrators know that they aren't simply head counters. Those with experience certainly do, because over the years we've had many people try to stuff non-existent ballots. Indeed, that's one the very reasons why we always point out that "It's not about the votes.". We learned from how badly wrong decisions based upon head counting sometimes went, and from experience with people gaming the system when administrators did act as head counters.

      It's worth pointing out that one can contribute to an AFD discussion without using boldfaced words. A few editors do. ("Comment" is perhaps the daftest part of this whole issue, by the way. Closing administrators are not illiterate buffoons. They can read. They can tell when something is a comment, or a response to a question, or further discussion, or simple observation, or suggestion, or whatever, without it having to be spoon-fed to them.) Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting the obvious: there are a lot more pages to move now than there were in 2005. The number of AfDs per day and people involved in AfD have skyrocketed since that nascent time. Dcoetzee 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramirez Guitar articles

José Ramírez III, José Ramírez, and Ramírez Guitars sound like vanity articles with few sources. Yet ten-string guitar makes it sound as if they have some degree of significance. Could someone look at this and see which articles he thinks are worth deleting, merging, or keeping? Wnt (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Hi, could someone please take a look at the following old AFDs as they need closing:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

They are all non-controversial mostly having already been speedily deleted, but as they are still technically open they still show up in Category:AfD debates. I'd do it myself but: a) I've never closed an AFD before and would probably mess it up and b) I believe some people have automated tools to close AFD's much more quickly than the manual way listed at WP:DELPRO#AFD. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 13:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! ascidian | talk-to-me 13:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

La La Land (Demi Lovato)

It's has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La La Land.

But the user still create the page!

Dennissell (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Timing of the clock

I'm not finding where this is written up (which doesn't preclude it hiding under my nose in the voluminous pages about deletion policy), so a question: If an AfD nomination is somehow not complete and a few days later one of the bots, such as DumbBOT, comes along and fixes it (lists it on the big page of the day, or whatever it was that got bolluxed in the scripting), when do the five days start ticking -- the original nomination or the completed nomination? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when the nomination is completed. Unless it got comments during the time before it was listed, at least. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Examples such as this discussion are fairly common -- the AfD was created and listed on a deletion sorting page, but apparently not on the daylog. So only subject editors are commenting, at least at first. Which does this fall under? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The first question is: Does it actually matter? Is keeping it open for another day or two likely to change the ultimate decision? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In that case, not really. But it'd be nice to know, both in general and in this case because it's part of some housecleaning the wikiproject is working on. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is best to ensure it has the full time for discussion. (Sometimes someone finds some sources and a trending-towards-delete discussion can quickly turn around.) I would "start the clock" once DumbBOT has completed the nomination. And that's the timing that Mathbot would use for listing the discussion at WP:OAFD anyway. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankee. Mathbot would be the one to go by, then. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In most cases it doesn't matter for a specific AfD. Unfortunately, a big part of the AfD process and policy is fairness. That comes from many things, chief among them predictability. I know that if someone AfDs Veteran Car Club of Great Britain I'll have 5 days to respond--I don't have to log in every day to check. Likewise if I make a nomination I know that I have 5 days of exposure to discussion to allow my argument to convince people other than the regular editors of the article in question. As such, we should start the clock from the time that the AfD process is completed--tag on the page, nomination made and transclusion in to the log. We have relisted or reopnened debates where the AfD was not properly transcluded: those mostly just restarted the clock from the moment of transclusion (the most commonly missed step). Protonk (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I confess fairness is one reason I find it really irritating when AfDs are closed early, especially by non-admins, except possibly for cases where it's been snowing hard for a dozen comments. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Even early closures by admins are a little frustrating. 1-5 hours I can see, but >10 (or even >24) seems unreasonable. A BIG (and I mean big) cause of this is the wonderful script by MR. Z-man (And the related "relisting" script by another user whose name escapes me. Prior to that thing's introduction we had days of backloads at AfD. Now it is uncommon to see more than 10 AfD's per day in the "Old AfD" log. Boy things change when you remove the tedious effort! Protonk (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I've noticed that AfDs are being closed in general earlier than they used to be. Further to my comment earlier on this page, I think there is something unhealthy about our deletion process when it is almost entirely admins who are willing to work outside of the strict policy (as they are closing AfDs after four days instead of the required five) who are closing AfDs. I thought DGG had a good idea: something similar to the templates on Prods that would change and say "This AfD has now been open for more than five days and is eligible to be closed." Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Again!!! La La Land (Demi Lovato song)

It's has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La La Land.

People create the page again and again! Dennissell (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I really can't believe I'm defending a Disney single article, but here I am. WP:Articles for deletion/La La Land was closed as delete on the basis that the single had never charted. It has since reached #52 on the Billboard Hot 100, so I don't think it's automatically a repost anymore. I'll make sure that the new version of the article mentions the chart. If it does, deletion is unnecessary and inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It does mention the charting (and, in fact, overdid it by including component charts). No longer G4 material ... Dennissell should feel free to take this version through AFD, but, historically, with a chart position of 52, a single article is virtually immune to deletion.—Kww(talk) 13:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
So Delete or not???Dennissell (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Not automatically. Conditions changed, and the reason that it was originally deleted no longer applies. If you think it should be deleted, you'll have to start a new AFD. Since it now passes the tests laid down in WP:NSONGS, it probably will pass AFD this time. Sometimes a single will still be deleted at AFD even after it has charted, but this one charted pretty well. It's very unlikely that you will get people to delete it again.—Kww(talk) 12:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How to create real change at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Dear editors trying to change this policy, it is hopeless aruging it here. Editors who support a policy page tend to be its most avid supporters and consistent contributors, drowning out dissenting opinion. Straw polls here are not straw polls of the wider community, but straw polls of supporters of the current status quo, with a couple of dissenters. Don't be discouraged by the results here.

Don't waste your time arguing policy and proposals on this talk page. "Elite" editors* supportive of WP:Articles for deletion know that most of these new proposals die on this page.

The only way to effect real, long lasting change, is to create a WP:Request for Comment, and make sure the wider community (not just the "elite" editors*) are aware of the WP:Request for Comment, through neutral messages on other policy talk pages, article talk pages, etc. IMPORTANT: See Wikipedia:Canvassing for narrow guidelines.

Showing a major flaw in our current WP:Voting guidelines, the editors with the side with the most contributions to the WP:Request for Comment tends to prevail, and the side with the most "elite" editors tends to prevail, no matter how many actual editor opinions there are. In one example, a request for comments on a proposed guideline passed even though editors opposed it nearly 2 to 1. Also, the first opinions usually are the most influential and the deciding factor in a RfC.

Editors here may criticize what I am writing. I am explaining my findings based on my own research, scholars research, and anecdotal evidence and observations of how wikipedia works.

*Elite editors are veteran editors,described in one scholarly study of wikipedia as editors with 10,000 or more edits. They are often administrators, although not always.

Ikip (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The above SOAPBOXXING comes as a result of Ikip's troubles at Notability Fiction, which led to an AN/I report. ThuranX (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
As you know, I was not reported at the ANI, another editor you support was reported for completely deleting Notability Fiction. I would appreciate it if you refactor your misleading comments. Please keep in mind this page is for a discussion about changes to article for deletion.Ikip (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Come on guys, let's keep it about this process. If you want to start an RFC about the AfD process Ikip, I'd welcome it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I second that idea. An RFC on our most non-controversial reform would be helpful. Although thus far, I'm not sure that anyone has been able to come up with a proposal uncontroversial enough to gain consensus with any amount of discussion. Randomran (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. RfC's are tiring though, which I purposely didn't mention above. :) I also agree it is hard to gain consensus on anything.
Crazy idea
Maybe we should mirror wikipedia. One keeps the name wikipedia, where the exclusionists/deletionists go, and the other one gets another name, without the "encyclopedia" name, where inclusionists go. Healthy competition is always good, and it will stop a lot of the fighting and bickering. :) I wonder which wikipedia would prevail? Just a thought off the top of my head. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You are free to do so at any time. The GFDL allows you to fork wikipedia (And several people have). Just don't expect free advertising, a good page rank, or anyone else to host the servers. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this idea before, I think recently. Flatscan (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a RFC on AFDs in general would do much, however I think a RFC on certain articles that are up for deletion could help sometimes. I personally feel a way to improve articles for deletion (and all deletion debates in general): discourage repetitive comments and possibly ban certain editors from debates if they continue to do it. I've seen more than once where a person just does a copy and paste keep (or delete) in numerous discussions in a row. It's simply disruptive and not helpful to the debates. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
With regard to mirroring, you might be interested in my new project Obscuropedia which is intended to be a wiki specifically for non-notable topics not covered by Wikipedia. I'd appreciate any feedback on the idea or contributions. :-) Dcoetzee 05:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Or deletionpedia. Ikip (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Christian Lyrics

  • Note, In responce for looking to delete Christian lyrics There was no discusion The site was deleted without a fair wikipedian trial LOL ... This was a defensive responce to the attack ...

Dear ........ some of us still believe in life here after ! Christian devotionals have been written down for centuries past. Christian worship can be dated back to even as far as Adam. and some of us are assured he was worshiping the GoD of Creation. Music although left in the hands of the former lucifer now the d evil is running out of time, what ever few minutes we might have left here on this ever changing planet leaves me no choice but to voice the lyrical content of a hopeful heart. You see sir I am 45 yrs in the making and time is running short. This site (Wikipedia) I believe was designed for the many as an inspiration of both Wisdom & knowledge, why do some of the many divide the two. Christian lyrics are the very first words to come out of what many might believe we were created for. The Supremacy of Love 1 If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. 3 Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself,[a] but have no love, I gain nothing.1 Corinthians 13 >> International Standard Version ... There's some Christian Lyrics... Dear wiki's I don't mean to be brash... Its just every time a Christian site goes up Its targeted and thrown to the lions ! what ever happened to God Bless America. Isn't anyone just a little scared !!!! or are some just waiting for the long cold sleep ................................................................ This is a beautiful site... The Christian Lyric site was deleted without a fair amicable discussion  ? User talk:Intelligentlove 08:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This Is what I sent to the attacker...

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. 'Articles listed here are debated for at least five days,' after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.User talk:Intelligentlove 08:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to put this back up for discussion ... intelligent Love What can you guys do to help God LOL .... not Funny :-(

You are correct, the deletion was not within speedy deletion policy but you should make yourself familiar with What Wikipedia is not: It is not a place for you or anyone to spread any kind of religious or philosophical message or for anyone to host their essays.
I doubt this article would survive an articles for deletion discussion anyway, but I requested the deleting admin to restore the page and let the AfD run it's course. I would not get my hopes up though, because a.) he does not have to follow my advice and b.) there is little doubt that the page will in the end be deleted. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Making Articles for Deletion more user friendly for new users

I've been reading the Articles for Deletion entries for the last few weeks (e.g. at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_28), and often find that they don't seem user friedly to me. I particularly find that things sometimes get speedy deleted after being taken to articles for deletion, but the Articles for Deletion entry doesn't do a good job of explaining the speedy deletion. Some examples are:

The result was speedy delete. - This doesn't explain why this article was speedy deleted, as opposed to just deleted through the normal Articles for Deletion process.

The result was speedy delete, G1. - The first time I saw something like this, it really confused me. What was this "G1" that was being referred to? Once I found the page explaining criteria for speedy deletion it started to make sense, but until then it was pretty confusing.

Anyway, I think it would be much better if the admin who did the speedy delete would make sure to write something like:

The result was speedy delete, G1 (article is patent nonsense). - This has a link to the speedy deletion criteria and the specific criteria being employed, as well as a brief summary of what that criteria is.

I think having things better explained on the Articles of Deletion page (as opposed to just on the page for the article in question (i.e. the page you get to upon clicking the red link), or on the talk page of the user who wrote the article, or anywhere else) would be particularly useful to new users who may not yet understand the deletion policies.

Another thing that I found confusing that I think should be avoided was an entry like this:

The result was delete, with seasoning. - Click on the link to see why this would confuse a new user.

I happened to see an entry like the one above when I first visisted Articles for Deletion, and I found it confusing. While I understand that people might want to inject some humor into these discussions, I would think that in such cases the person would be extra careful to link to the right thing. While the user who kept creating the article to the point that it needed to be salted probably won't even bother viewing Articles for Deletion, it still seems to me that it is important to make what is going on clear to any other user who might be reading the page.

Anyway, I was just really hoping that things like that could be avoided. Entries like that made it harder for me to understand what was going on at Articles for Deletion. While it wasn't too much of a hassle for me, I could see a user with less free time just giving up on Articles for Deletion after getting confused by something like that. Calathan (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Assuming that a user can find it, WP:Guide to deletion is pretty helpful. Its Shorthands section does a reasonable job of explaining your examples. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Calathan, Considering that the majority of articles for deletion are against articles created by new users, your comments are very important and need to be addressed. Ikip (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Forgive me if someone else has said this before, but how about creating some standardized friendly result templates that link to some explanations and policy pages? Wikidemon (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • The problem stems from boilerplate closures — the simple additions of the {{subst:afd top}} template and a single word. Making boilerplate closures easier doesn't fix the problem. What fixes the problem is encouraging closing administrators to show their working, i.e. to give rationales for their closures, explaining how they came to the decision that they did.

          I've been giving MBisanz some encouragement recently in this regard, as a matter of fact. It really does prevent having to do a greater amount of work further down the road. (Have a look at the length of User talk:MBisanz, and the number of "Can you please explain this?" requests there.) And yes, this does include forestalling the inevitable requests from people new to Wikipedia to whom the process is not apparent.

          The first two closing administrators to come to mind who are in the main good examples to imitate, and whose closures should be read, are Rossami and Splash. There are several others. Start with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five on it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon (toponym), for examples. Uncle G (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

            • There's nothing wrong with the top closure boiler plate as it only says the debate was closed. It is the admin who needs to add the rationale. I believe that creating boilerplate rationales that have links to speedy criteria and a short explanation would actually improve the user friendliness. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
              • If we can all remember when we were newbies, Wikipedia education was an evolution. No WikiPedia 101, 102, 103,ect. We roamed around, got instructions, learned abit here and there, had our run-ins with other editors, etc.But after awhile we got "the lay of the land" and developed certain personal expectations of what the place should look like. Clear instructions to the newbies should be a cornerstone of AfD since, most times, a newbie comes here to find out why his article was put up for deletion. Clear explanations of administrative action by the administrator acting is also at the level of a prerequisite. As expressed above, it only takes a moment and prevents unnecessary discussion.--Buster7 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • (Outdent) I don't like the addition of further boilerplate rationale. The {{Welcome}} templates have a lot of words on them, but don't really substitute for human contact. More boilerplate just means longer default text. It doesn't actually mean that the decision is explained properly. Most closes (IMO) make explanation of the decision superfluous. Most keep closes and delete closes are near-unanimous. Where they are not or some explanation would help illuminate the thought process, admins should give explanations. I hope I do. But there is no substitute for that. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Calathan. i see no reason we can't add something new editors can look at and see where their failings lie.

Deletion sorting instructions

On deletion sorting, WP:AFD's instructions are currently: "Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination."

Unfortunately, as has just been pointed out to me, adding the template to the nomination actually doesn't actually do anything. To add it to a deletion-sorting list, you need to manually add a {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the appropriate list. Instructions for that are on the appropriate deletion-sorting-list page, but are easy enough to miss by an editor concentrating on the main list of instructions (and only looking for the "template" that these instructions have told him to look for, rather than reading the deletion-sort listing page headers in detail). Can I suggest one of two options:

  1. Actually tell the editor on the main instructions to manually add the nomination to the deletion-sorting pages, before adding the template to the nomination.
  2. Better yet, set it up so that, similar to WP:RFCs, adding the template to the nomination causes a bot to add it to the appropriate deletion-sort-list. Given that all the pages that the bot would have to search for these templates is subpages of WP:AFD, this shouldn't be too difficult or resource-intensive.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

agree completely. At present we tend to rely on volunteers going out looking and doing it right, which works better in some subjects than others. A bot is the way, if we can depend on it. Could we go further and add automatic insertion of the delete sorting category by workgroup when there's a workgroup tag? DGG (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've filed Wikipedia:Bot request#Delsort on this. No action on it yet, but it's just been up a couple of hours. DGG's idea may be more complicated, but also more useful in the long run. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld

Hi everybody. I don't expect special privelages on here, I don't even want adminship, but one thing that would be a great help to this project is if people were banned for listing an AFD of an article I've created BEFORE asking me to expand it. Tens of my articles have been posted here over due course and EVERY time I've expanded a "non notable" article and resulted in it being kept. Example include Bulgarian Center for Not-For-Profit Law, Uliger, Photographic Center of Skopelos and currently Child Museum of Cairo etc. I personally think I have a good judgement generally what is encyclopedia or notable and what we require to develop wikipedia and have created around 1/60th of the article we have on here. I create a lot of stubs for sure in good faith that people will expand them and have seen hundreds of articles I've created expanded fully. I find AFDs sometimes stressful as a way of other editors saying "your articles are not welcome" when I;ve not even had the chance to try to address the nominators concerns. Can we please change the general policy or towards myself that the nominator must give the article creator a 24 hour notice before listing an AFD. It is not fair otherwise and a lot of time would be saved in some of the pointless AFDs which end up getting a keep in the end once expanded. It is a waste of my time when I could be expanding these articles or creating new ones. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Might it be better to either place these fledging articles in userspace, or place an {{underconstruction}} tag on it to let editors know not to judge the article in the present state? --MASEM 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Banning users for putting one of your articles up for AFD without notifying you first? Not even worth considering. Perhaps if you only created articles after you had good sourcing in hand, and included those sources in the first version of your article, this wouldn't be such a problem in your life. I presume that people have every article they have created on their watchlist, and the addition of the AFD notice is warning enough ... that gives the author five days to produce the source he should have had available when he created the article.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean blocking users, I just mean a policy which will give editors a 24 hour warnign period that an article they have created may be listed at AFD. Just a small period in which you can answer their concerns. Why is it not worth considering? People seem more than willing to brandish all sorts of policies around here, why would it be so unfeasible that the editor who created the article is notified of a possible AFD within 24 hours? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The nominator's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Museum is merely "Unasserted notability", and this is something I see time and time again - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bloody Aria for another similar example. When nominating an article at AfD, a user should be able to present some sort of evidence that they have looked for and failed to find sources, and if citing a notability guideline they should properly state how an article fails the guideline. There needs to be a greater onus on the nominator making a case for deletion rather than having others do all the work to rescue an article, and the only way to enforce this is to speedy close any nominations that fail to do this. That said, creating articles like this is also a tad unhelpful, and either a bit more content or the {{underconstruction}} tag might have held off the AfD. PC78 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is there need of additional 24 hrs when you are given 120 hrs. for debate and improvement? I'm not defending anyone who does not present sufficient reason for nomination, but your approach towards AfD is the one discouraged in practice: don't take offense that you article was nominated. Work on it, improve it and convince the nominator and other involved editors that the article is worth keeping. Or even simpler way, as Masem suggested, create and expand it in your userspace before bringing it to mainspace. LeaveSleaves 16:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Chiefly because it permits editors to file a deletion for an article before the problems with it have been addressed by the creator and it has had a single chance to be expanded. People blindly see a one line stub and think yes no use delete. An hour later they see the article has now been expanded a great deal and has a lot of useful information and clearly see that their own initial judgement needs amending. A waste of time. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I know this is a rather rude and out-of-place question to ask and ignore me if you don't wish to answer it, but why are there problems left to be addressed by the creator? Why not create an article that is full in terms of reflecting notability? LeaveSleaves 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Because I do a great deal of work at expanding this encyclopedia in "starting articles", which I believe can be expanded into full articles if people collaborate. The clear answer to your question is that I try very hard to get missing subjects onto here and given the sheer amount to do sometimes quality and content is compromised. While quality is important, I see creating stubs as "planting seeds" which hope any of our millions of users will help collaborate with and help sow, as lame as that sounds. I've seen hundreds of similarly short stubs I've created expanded into full articles so I don't think the work I do on here with stub building is a waste of time. I expand many articles myself but there is only so little time so much to do! Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PC above, but note PC I created a batch of museum articles in bot format not seperately. They were considered important missing museum articles which I started from a missing red list in good faith to blue link that others would expand them. In my recent AFD there are loads of sources available and the nominator clearly didn't look. The best thing would have been for the nominator to search for sources to make it notable first and if not ask the creator if he has any sources to assert notability and leave a prod tag on it and then list at AFD after the warning period. I'm not upset that an article is listed, really its more along the lines of the way in which it was listed". I don't think there is a strong guideline for what gets listed at AFD, and however much you claim that there , may editors who nominate are not doing it properly and trying to expand it first themsevles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re "Many editors who nominate are not doing it properly and trying to expand it first themselves", I agree. Look at the big debate in the sections just above this one. --Philcha (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is confusing "notability" with lack of content and unwillingness to edit or improve the encyclopedia themselves. Sure there are a lot of clear duds within this encyclopedia that most people would want nuked asap where AFD becomes very appropriate but I'm afraid that many editors are not looking to find any claims to notability themselves. IN the two museum cases a click google check would have shown them to be national museums the first an official Greek heritage museum, the second one inaugurated by the British museum. While this may alone not convince some people the sources that accompanied the google search and clearly notable content of the museums should have given the editor propsing to look beyond the poor stub and consider expanding it. If they were not willing to edit themselves then at least ask the editor to expand it. So in answer to the above, yes I believe the main problem is the criteria. A short article is not the same as a non notable article. Sure notability needs to be asserted but this naturally comes with expansion. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish we could help you here, I really do, but policy isn't prescriptive, it's supposed to merely describe how things currently work (or how the community has decided things will work). What I suggest you do is work each article up to a fairly good state after (or before) creation, ignoring any AfDs that may or may not be placed on it, and then begin work on the next. If you feel you should you can make a comment in each AfD, but in the situation you describe it appears that the articles are surviving on merits alone and so long discussion in each AfD shouldn't be necessary. This isn't me asking you to stop, I'm just saying that it doesn't look like you need to worry about the AfDs too much. If any are deleted which you were still in the process of working on, drop me a line and I'll be happy to userfy them for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Another thought is to create the article as a subpage of your userpages, that way you wouldn't need to worry about an article being AFD'd before you can expand upon it. TrekFanatic (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)That would defeat the purpose of a collaborative wiki. Putting the article in mainspace gives a chance to people to collaborate by improving it. Warehousing an article in user space until it is "mature" doesn't sound too collaborative. In addition Dr. Blofeld creates a lot of stubs. He can't warehouse these stubs in his userspace until they grow. That would require him to work on dozens of articles without expecting any help. From my experience with AFDs, I think this has more to do with a condition which I call "Taggitis". It is a condition whereby tagging is performed for the sake of tagging and it encompasses all tagging activities not only AFDs. For example: It is much easier to use the tag [citation needed] instead of finding a reference. Similarly it is much easier to tag for AFD rather than bothering to google about the notability of an article or discuss it with the original article author. Dr.K. logos 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
DR. K. has the right answer. We keep wanting the cake to be baked already, and it won't be. Unfortunately, the collaborative effort on very parochial subjects is very, very low. low enough that I have just shifted to creating fully formed articles at first edit rather than producing unfinished stubs. There aren't enough eyes to make it practical. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We don't have enough interested people. But if people showed some measure of courtesy and informed the stub creator about their concerns before they trigger the AFD or PROD process many such conflicts could be avoided. Dr.K. logos 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I wasn't pointing to lack of interest as an excuse for pushing "wiki" out and "pedia" in. That's a bigger change to wikipedia itself and it has been going on for some time. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "but one thing that would be a great help to this project is if people were banned for listing an AFD of an article I've created BEFORE asking me to expand it" this is not a small request... I sympathize with your troubles regarding overzealous editors nominating pages for deletion. That said, some retaliatory measure isn't in order. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'd just rather somebody asked me straight to expand it or prod it first and I don't think that is a tall order in the slightest. Taking an article straight to AFD without even trying to expand it or research tells me that they "want" to delete the article. If they took an article to AFD based on a genuine concern that they couldn't find any sources whatsoever or couldn't verify it I wouldn't have a problem with it, its just when they take a short article to AFD when they are a lot of web sources available which show that the article can clearly be saved. I just think AFD should be a last resort, not first point of call for a short article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. AFD or PROD are unnecessarily disruptive and should be used with caution. Sometimes the courtesy of notifying the original author of the stub could avoid conflicts and be less disruptive, as I remarked above to Protonk. Dr.K. logos 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Before continuing, you may want to see: Wikipedia:FREQUENT#All_authors_must_be_notified_of_deletion and ask around about what succeeded and what failed before. travb (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that on a number of occasions I haven't even been notified of the AFD when I have been the sole editor, let alone asked to expand it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: If it's a different editor every time, you'll just have to live with it. If it's the same editor repeatedly tagging your articles, ask nicely and maybe next time he'll give you a day. After all, it will save him time too: Unless he's using a script, tagging an article for AFD takes 3 or 4 steps and takes up at least 5-10 minutes of valuable time. If you are really nice and polite, he may even want to collaborate with you fixing these up. On the other hand, if if it turns out he's just got it in for you, then use the regular dispute-resolution processes, not WT:AFD. You might also be pro-active and go back over your existing creations and beef them up a little, to pre-empt this kind of AFDing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Review all his contributions? Seriously, that is a very large number indeed. Common sense ouht to prevail, and people whose article (or whatever) are put up for deletion should be given notice. Period. Collect (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No, people who have created an article have no more say in an AfD than anyone else. Articles should be judged on their own merits, not on the creator. I have no objection to people being notified, but the obligation to do so is unwanted. In mostof the discussions I have seen on this page in the past years, all I have seen are people trying to add more and more instructions, requirements, ... for people before they are allowed to put anything up for deletion. Meanwhile, by far the most AfD discussions work out quite well, with a clear delete or keep, and with only a limited number of DRV's or other recreations of the same material. Are we actually trying to solve any real problem with AfD, or are people just trying to reduce the number of deletions?
As for people taking articles by Dr. Blofeld to deletion: yes, that can be annoying, but then again, experienced editors should not be creating articles without any sourcing, like e.g. Adumdé. If you get your data from a reliable source, mention it. If you don't, don't create the article. But don't start complaining about the faults of other editors when you create unsourced stubs in the first place. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I demur. The article creator may well be able to establish notability (the example you cite for being unsourced is for a town, and it appears that AfDs for towns generally fail) and thus is likely to know more about the article than others stumbling upon the AfD. Collect (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I would not suggest that we AfD that article. As for the creator: they may know more about the article, but they are also less likely to take a neutral, objective look at it. In most cases, the article creator is not needed to see if a subject is notable or not, and while I have seen AfDs where the input of the creator was valiuable, I have equally seen AfDs where the article creator created a lot of extra work and discussion for absolutely nothing. And I generally object to more instruction creep for AfDs if there is no similar counterweight in more instructions and requirements for article creation (like, e.g., at least one reliable independent source in the article). Fram (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good thing to contact the author of an article when references are hard to come by since they must've taken their information from somewhere. But doing so on a case by case basis suffices. Requiring someone to be contacted every time is impractical. Why not let a bot do it? - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Quoting Blofeld: "I find AFDs sometimes stressful as a way of other editors saying "your articles are not welcome" when I;ve not even had the chance to try to address the nominators concerns." I think the key to compromise here is to reinforce that an AfD nomination does not say "your article is not welcome"; it says, politely, "This article, as it currently stands, may not comply with our policies and standards. If you think you can fix it up we'd be glad to reconsider." In some cases, opening an AfD for an article that is quite likely to be rescued is a waste of others' time, since it could have been handled with two people instead of many - but it's difficult to anticipate which cases those will be. Dcoetzee 06:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I started tagging, as needing sources, articles Blofeld created on "museums" which lacked sources, after running across them doing random article patrol. How does it contribute in any way to sprint along creating articles like a robot, when there are no sources to indicate whether a given one is an important and well known museum, or a little tourist gift shop or a small private collection? I do not see a benefit to the encyclopedia to make it a mirror of some all-inclusive and nondiscriminating listing of any sort of entity, and spend no time at all on making sure the entity is encyclopedic. The encyclopedia becomes less and less useful if thousands of stubs are created, while a more and more cumbersome process is erected to try and remove any of the robostubs. And then the astonishing demand is made that anyone who nominates one of them for deletion, without giving Blofeld 24 hours to do what he should have done in the first place, should be banned! Did he spend even 1 hour creating each article? Apparently not, since such articles were created at the rate of one or even 2 per minute last April. The articles tended to be "X is a museum in the city of Y," such as Museum of the Water Mill of Paleopyrgos.He created 2 other articles in the same minute he created this one. It has been tagged as needing sources and lacking evidence of notability since August 2008. What becomes of Wikipedia if it takes 20 seconds to create an article about something which might or might not have sources or be encyclopedic, but hours of hard work to delete it? The quality of articles goes lower, and lower, most likely, although there will be stubs about everything that exists or which might exist. Blofeld's considerable talents might better have been devoted to fleshing out far fewer articles. An article creator can be expected to watchlist it and address problems such as the tagging for lack of sources and lack of a claim of notability. ("X is a Y in Z" does not, generally, constitute the requireed claim of notability.) Not everything which the owner calls a "museum" equals what one might expect a notable museum to be. Edison (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the article writing process took less than 20 seconds each. The time between clicking 'save' on two pages doesn't tell you anything about how much time you spent getting things up to that point. I routinely work with dozens of tabs open, and many people (including this user) write articles offline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
How much "research" and "writing" go into creating hundreds of unreferenced roboarticles that say "X is a Y in Z" based on an online listing of things? And then I should spend hours researching whether the thing exists or has any references before nominating it for deletion, when the creator of the articles leaves them tagged unreferenced for half a year? Edison (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Blofeld: Planting seeds is a good thing. But writing short article doesn't mean they shouldn't explain why they should be included, aka notability. I've written a couple of very short articles myself, but the reason why it should be included is always the first thing I write down. Only when I have that, do I put it into article space. - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I took at look at the history of one of the examples the Evil Dr. gave -- Uliger. The version which was listed for deletion clearly stated, "They are an important part of the oral traditions among the Buryats and other Siberian tribes." However, the nominator dismissed this claim, stating that "Uliger" is nothing more than the Mongolian/Buryat word for "fairytale". After much flurry of activity of editting & debate at AfD, the article was kept. While demanding a block of people who make these kinds of nominations is overreacting, I can understand our Evil Dr.'s frustration here: how can you prove to someone who is already prejudiced in this case that the article is worth keeping? A stub class only reinforces that kind of prejudice. -- llywrch (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Keep" or "nomination withdrawn "nitpickery"

Sometimes I see nominations like this one that go a full listing period (or more) where even though the nominator "withdraws", I feel it deserves to be closed as "keep". I also do this when such a nom has unstruck "delete" !votes but the overall consensus is still "keep". I feel that the words used might be relevant in future nominations of the same article. Am I right or is this just nitpicking?

As silly as this sounds I recall a case from last October where an editor reopened an AFD closed as "keep" so she could close it "nomination withdrawn" [1]. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Like you, if the AfD has gone the full period, and the consensus is keep, I'll close it that way whether or not the nom has withdrawn. The only time I close as "withdrawn" is if the nom withdrew, there are no unstruck delete !votes, and it closed early.
In the example you gave where the AfD was reopened, unless there's more to the story, it does seem a bit nitpickey. Granted, the original closure reason wasn't as clear as it could be, but all the information was there (that the nom was withdrawn, that the article wasn't deleted). I probably would have just dropped a note to the closer saying that the summary might confuse inexperienced editors.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This (I mean the practice, not this question) is just the kind of bureaucratic timewasting that we would be well rid of if we simplified AfD to make it more like any other decision-making "process".--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can some kind of moderator/admin remove this article? it is a joke and constantly being vandalised. Type 'Horeshoe theory' in search and investigate, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is more a reason to protect the article rather than delete it. If you'd like it deleted, feel free to register an account and nominate it for AfD, or place your nomination statement on the talk page and another editor will create the AfD for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Brain Types Page Deletion

I started a page on a sports performance ideology called "brain types" a couple of years ago. Here is a link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_types While starting the article seemed a decent idea at the time after having watched a sports program discussing brain types, the article proper has really only been a burden to the Wikipedia community, and has been nominated for deletion as some dispute whether or not it meets notability guidelines, NPOV, ethical standards, etc. I now request an admin remove it so we can end the disputes and problems the page has caused. If anyone could do this, it would be great. Regardless of what happens to it, though, it has made me lose interest in Wikipedia entirely, and make me feel as though I have been an ineffective contributor to the site, so I am leaving the site anyway whether or not the page stays. Do what you will with it - deletion preferably - but I am done. Khendra1984 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is how we currently welcome new wikipedians

  1. User talk:Trackinfo 10 warning labels on this new user's page.
  2. User talk:P4poetic 8 warning labels on the new user's page.
  3. User talk:DJ Bungi Numerous warnings, intermixed.

Should I go on? Probably not...travb (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's amusing that the PC World artcile you cite uses the phrase "the dark side", at which such offense was taken in the discussion above. --Philcha (talk)
How representative are those 3 users for the general population of new users? Can you get figures for the number of new users over a particular period, the number of those with talk pages, the number of automated as opposed to human edits to those pages and a distribution chart for the number of warnings. If you can cross reference that with the level of activity of the new user then we are in a position to discuss this from facts rather then opinions. Spartaz Humbug! 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
How representative are those 3 users for the general population of new users?
I would love to find out, and I am attempting to find out right now.
I had a law history professor say it is much easier and more enjoyable to simply speculate and draw conclusions then do actual mundane research. I know, my own Statistical Package for the Social Sciences research was excruciating. I am doing the research. I feel like the facts that I have thus far are inconclusive, but point to a disturbing trend, and this is the correct forum to bring this concerns up.
Lets be honest, will editors act on such trends? I think the answer has more to do with a person's past experiences on wikipedia, and general demeanor, then on the facts themselves. Look at the dismissive way that editors who support the status quo are treating negative media reports. One fact is certain, which no one here will debate, no matter how much evidence I collect and evaluate, some editors will continue to dismiss this evidence. travb (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And I'm sure a lot of people can sympathaise with how annoying it is to log into wikipedia and see oall these bot generated image problems and deletions for an encyclopedia in which you are not compelled to be a part of. To a lot of newbies they must think, damm this project, I'm here as a volunteer, I don't need the hassle. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Travb, you would be more convincing if you gave good examples... Trackinfo made his/her first edit in April 2007, and got his first talk page message in June 2008, i.e. over a year later. P4poetic started editing in August 2006, and received 4 warnings before the end of that year. DJ Bungi started editing in June 2005, and had by the end of the first half year 4 warnings and one welcome message. Furthermore, most of the warnings for these people were correct.

I'm not claiming that there is no problem at all, but inflating the numbers by counting messages received years after people started editing to discuss "how we welcome new Wikipedians" is dubious, and giving such old examples for how we currently welcome Wikipedians is dubious as well. Fram (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sharqi

Can anyone please delete the article Sharqi? It is almost useless with nobody editing the article in general for over 8 months!! Albertgenii12 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really suitable for deletion as there seems to be a number of references to it[3],[4],[5] (some of which I've added to the article) and, not least, because Encyclopædia Britannica Online has a short entry on it[6], which would suggest it's a notable weather phenomenon and a valid subject for an encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think an article is useless if it hasn't been edited for a few months? Consider it one of the lucky articles to have not been found by vandals!  :) Besides, if you feel you can improve the article, then BE BOLD! ArcAngel (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this article truly Notable? The listing on NOAA is less than a paragraph. WP:N states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I took my first look at the article in question & I found it useful. Named winds usually have a non-trivial amount of folklore & popular history associated with them; is it the article's fault that no one has added this to the article yet? -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, its not the articles fault. However, if noone is willing to add to the article, then I would have to say that at this point, the article is not notable. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Now THAT is some faulty reasoning if I ever heard it. Why not put it through the AfD process then? Better yet, try to expand the article. I am sure it could be expanded with info - the trick is to find sourcing for any facts that might be out there. ArcAngel (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I don't have any issue with it. The article was placed here because someone believed it should be deleted. Now personally, I have always said that we as editors should try to fix an article before we delete it, unless it is blatantly unecyclopedic. Question is, Does the article meet WP:Note, if not, can it be brought to those specifications, and who is willing to do it. If no one is willing to do it, then it's not worthy of being kept at this time. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I like challenges, so I will try to expand on it and re-write it so there is more detail to it. ArcAngel (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
On another note, seems like I can just redirect this to the Shamal (wind) article, since it seems like Sharqi is repeating information that can be found in the former. Anyone have an issue with re-direction of Sharqi to Shamal (wind), then? ArcAngel (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Shamal is a northwesterly wind while the Sharqi is a southernly or southeasterly wind so they are different things. Perhaps a merge and redirect to Middle East/Climate? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the merge to Middle East/Climate. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good compromise, I think. I guess I was confused on shamal because the Sharqi article made a reference to it. ArcAngel (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Searching for deletion discussion

Hi I am searching for information on why the page on Burntollet was deleted. While placing a stub there I was suprised to see such a key moment in the civil rights movement had been deleted not once, but twice. I couldn't find the normal discussion page that contains opinions on whether/why/if to delete for either deletion. Does anyone know where to look? I was unable to find anything on browsing for a solution.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The deletions (from 2005) were for copyright reasons: apparently the content of the articles then was copied from another source (website or book), which is not allowed on Wikipedia. A copyright deletion is unrelated to the actual subject of the article and should have no impact on later creations of the article. Fram (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this info.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

As a quick note, I have just boldy created Template:AfDh and Template:AfDb in analogy to Template:Rfah resp. to Template:Rfab. I honestly believe this will be of use/help when closing (very) long debates, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common emoticons, where I have already used it. — Aitias // discussion 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the purposes of these templates? Is the first for the same purpose as Template:Closing? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly (both are). — Aitias // discussion 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

yu gi oh the abridged series

This IS notable or aleast a lot more notable then a lot of things that have a page.

I am ironbatman (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. If you think you can write up a version that won't have the same failings as the AfD'd versions, please feel free to do so on a subpage in your userspace. Say, at User:I am ironbatman/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series, then take that version to deletion review. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ironbatman, under what criteria do you claim it is notable? Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "more notable then a lot of things that have a page," see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Dcoetzee 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just mean to start an article to get the ball rolling, then other people will edit the page and before you know it there will be a perfectly good article. And regarding your "more notable then a lot of things that have a page," It says there is stopping anybody from creating a page, but the dillema is I can't create a page and that's why I am complaining. The criteria I claim that it is notible is that if you search on youtube "yu gi oh the abridged series" there will be many different videos (32 episodes with a movie, 2 council of doom episodes and 2 christmas specials) which combined have millions of views (unlike cloverfield but that has a page). This is just part of the systematic bias against internet based subjects.

I am ironbatman (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube isn't considered a reliable source for some things. For others - ehhh. ArcAngel (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This was supposed to be the first answer in this section. Then I had classes, the house flooded, that sort of thing. It's possible that the series has more right to an article than some of the stuff we cover. When you get down to it the notability rules are an arbitrary cut-off point, one that most people here seem to consider necessary but it's still going to cause problems.

Notability's relatively recent, though. I think the abridged series runs into a more serious rule that's stood for as long as long as the site: Verifiability. We have to be able to provide the readers with something more reliable than our word. Yes, Wikipedia and reliability, har har har, but what we have is because of that. Worse, Having nothing to check statements against also kneecaps the editing process: it can be impossible or unreasonably difficult to do maintenance, resolve disputes and distinguish between vandalism and valid changes. Worse, this is one of the ten most popular websites in existence and the target of every self-respecting scammer and con man on the planet. Yu Gi Oh the abridged series is legit, but there's no way we could judge these things on a case-by-case basis.

There you have it. There's an infuriating amount of get-off-my-lawn-ya-kids elitism around, but the most basic problem with covering Internet-based subjects is that they're underrepresented in the usable external sources that bring value to articles. --Kizor 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Some pinhead violates copyright on youtube, we should cover it? Is there rampant external RS for this? Or just internet fanboy love? ThuranX (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Case in point. --Kizor 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Kizor it explained a lot of things, and also to thruanX your contribution was... err.... umm.... noted. But i'm pretty sure youtube is a valid source because Yu gi oh the abridged series exists on youtube, it's not like i'm saying diet coke can be used as rocket fuel because i saw it on youtube. And isn't there some rule against bad mouthing people??? or is that just for some people the "man" doesn't like, well any way if i was a fanboy i would be too busy writing horrible fan fics to do this. I am ironbatman (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(Trolling above removed). No, YouTube is not a reliable source. Any video uploaded there can be edited beforehand, removing or redubbing key elements, which is exactly the case with the above series. Google gave me back one page of results for the topic, and all of those were Youtube videos or blogs to it. Not one wp:rs has anything about it. It's a fanboy thing, or an anti-fanboy thing. either way, who cares? ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Sorry about that. Our fair compatriot has been banned on five separate occasions for failure to play nice. Smarter people than me now seem to be working out what we're supposed to do with him.

(Strokes beard) He's right, though. The contents of YouTube videos would never be accepted as references. They're too easy to edit (heh) and have nothing but the submitter's word to back their authenticity and accuracy. I remember wanting to source details about a WWII destroyer using a contemporary newsreel on YouTube, a couple of years ago. A way of getting around the unreliable format (a way I did NOT use because I was young and stupid) would've been tracking down the original's details and giving those as a reference, like one'd do with a book, instead of the YouTube version. For obvious reasons the same is not possible here. --Kizor 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, its been a few days since i last checked this AfD, but allow me to insert something. I am ironbatman, I asked under what criteria do you claimed it is notable, and you stated youtube. Wikipedia has certain criteria for articles, They can be found Here. Check that out as well as This and tell me if you think it qualifies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice re premature AfD closure

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamnet Shakespeare: the debate has been closed, citing (incorrectly I believe) WP:SNOW, after less than a day while debate was still underway and without unanimous agreement. It seems to me that the WP:IAR solution would be to simply reverse the closure so the discussion can run its course - can someone uninvolved do this, or should it be taken to DRV? Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 09:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum I have no objection to letting the closure stand; this is a procedural question more than anything else :P EyeSerenetalk 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The nomination for the AfD is rather unusual. There seems rather lack of clarity on how exactly this article fits inclusion. Now, looking at the AfD objectlively, I agree that the closure was somewhat premature and an improved closing summary which would clarify that there is no inclination on deletion would have been more appropriate. But all in all, I'd say that there is wasn't anything particularly wrong about the closure in terms of final result. LeaveSleaves 11:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks for your thoughts. As I understand it, the AfD was listed because there was some doubt about whether the subject's notability was enough for a stand-alone biography article. I don't think there was any doubt about keeping the information in some form or other, but the article's notability had to be tested first. I don't believe the AfD has really settled anything as it wasn't allowed to run for long enough, but no big deal ;) EyeSerenetalk 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EyeSerene. The premature closure of this AfD means that nothing has been resolved. A complete waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves is correct here, there's no issue letting the closure stand. In AfD's eyes, a "merge" closure is simply a variation on a "keep" closure, and the closure of an AfD does not preclude an editorial merge discussion, so there's little point overturning what seems to be a clear snowball keep. If Pastor Theo modifies his closing statement to say as much, I think everyone would be happy(-er than they are now). Also, I've notified Pastor Theo of this discussion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but was disappointed that an ongoing debate to test the article's notability (one of the purposes of AfD) was cut short before, as Malleus notes, anything had been resolved. A less 'by the book' application of the closure criteria would have been helpful in this case. However, we are where we are and, as I said, no big deal. EyeSerenetalk 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I tried to read the the prior discussion a bit more in detail. The oddness in this case is that while the article clears GAC, there is confusion on its stand-alone notability. Frankly, in my opinion, if the the subject has sufficient coverage to clear GAC, it is notable enough for inclusion. In any case, the article isn't worthy of deletion. Further, a merger, possibly with William Shakespeare (correct me if I am wrong here), would only strain the latter article's existing structure. Bottom line, AfD is really not an ideal venue to solve the issue. May I suggest putting forward a possible merger proposal or even an RfC (which I know sounds rather extreme) if you are looking for wider audience? LeaveSleaves 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Very true, it is an unusual case :P The GA criteria are very specific and don't actually mention notability at all, so GA status is not a confirmation of notability. You're right to imply that issues that might affect the notability of a subject would probably be addressed during a GA review, but only as a by-product of the process, so it's perfectly possible (theoretically!) for a Good Article to end up deleted on notability grounds. The WT:GAN thread was started because there may be issues with the article's GA pass, but it's notability was questioned and, as the more fundamental issue, we felt that needed settling first - so AfD seemed the logical place to come. Maybe, as you suggest, another venue would have been better. EyeSerenetalk 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The article didn't actually meet the good article criteria, but that is an aside. Geometry guy 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This was not at all a "by-the-book" application of WP:SNOW! SNOW is not a guideline at all, but styles itself as a consequence of WP:IAR. However editors quoting SNOW seem to think IAR means "ignore the rules when you don't see the point of following them". IAR doesn't say that. It says "If a rule prevents you improving or maintaining Wikipedia, then ignore it." Cutting short a productive discussion that had only been going only one day emphatically does not improve the encyclopedia. SNOW itself is not explicit enough about that, but it does imply that its should be used primarily for unanimous decisions and that "if somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause."

I do not wish to reopen this AfD, as the moment has been lost. Further, I am disheartened to see AfDs on delicate articles like this determined by votes "per WP:N" by editors who show no signs of having read WP:N recently and thinking about how it applies in this case, or reflects consensus at AfD. AfD is not a vote. A bureaucracy we may not be, but with every passing day we seem to be turning into a democracy where consensus is being equated to percentage support in a vote. How sad. Geometry guy 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Was there a snowball's chance in hell that we would have deleted Hamnet Shakespeare? If so, then the SNOW close was wrong. If no, then the SNOW close was right. It's not a risk free undertaking. Some people make snow closures when they shouldn't. And they rightly get burned. Some people happen to guess correctly. and they help us avoid pointless debate. In my opinion, there was no way we would delete that article. Just off the top of my head I can think of two sources that mention Hamnet significantly which aren't cited in the article and the sources cited in the article allow it to more than meet the GNG. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Keep" and "delete" are not the only possible outcomes of an AfD, yet apparently you think it is right to snowball an AfD when there is no chance that the article will be deleted. I hope you will rethink. Many editors are taking the snowball close as meaning that AfD has endorsed the right to an independent existence, no merger, no renaming. There are plenty of sources mentioning Hamnet. There are also plenty of sources mentioning Romeo Beckham. How do we decide to keep the former as an article but leave the latter as a redirect? Is AfD competent to address that question? Apparently not, and your comment adds to my sadness. Geometry guy 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
While AfDs are often closed as "merge" or "redirect", they really are flavors of keep in that any editor can come along and revert to an earlier version. (Not so with delete). Besides the fact that I wouldn't have closed this one this early, if the full five days had run and I was closing it, I'd add a comment saying that the consensus was clearly not to delete, that "keep", "merge" and "redirect" are all flavors of the same thing, and therefore it's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.
Would it be nice if AfD became something that could also enforce merge and redirect decisions? IM(NS)HO, heck yeah. But that's not the way AfD is set up currently. Right now, it's pretty much "delete" and "flavors of keep".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry my comment "adds to your sadness". In my opinion, AfDs are places where a deletion discussion occurs, primarily. this doesn't stop us from discussing mergers, but anything more complicated than merging an article that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria into one that does doesn't belong at AfD. It doesn't have the format nor the attendance to handle it. We don't handle splits, mergers of two equally important articles into one, mergers to multiple parents, or any other sort of complex merge. And that is just practice. Policy says we don't do mergers at all. So people come to AfD to have an article deleted. If an editor determines that a discussion about deleting Hamnet is a waste of time, then s/he is welcome to take the risk and halt the discussion. I have no control over what people think AfD has endorsed. I'm of the opinion that AfD endorses no state of an article save cases where the closing decision was made expressly for the purpose of enforcing a specific state (and "keep" is not one of those cases). But my opinion doesn't impact people who choose to interpret the AfD in such a fashion. All the AfD does is determine whether or not an article meets the guidelines and policies for inclusion. If it does, then the editorial decision to merge/ redirect/ smerge/ whatever the content can be made elsewhere. And, for the case of Hamnet, should be made elsewhere. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Meet the guidelines and policies for inclusion" as a separate article, not a redirect, right? That's what the guidelines discuss. Geometry guy 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not it becomes a redirect is still largely an editorial decision. This discussion isn't settled by any means. See the Episodes and Characters RFARs and dozens of debates on this subject. Protonk (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Then all such AfDs should be closed as "Keep, merge, redirect, or rename, as you like, but do not delete the content". Geometry guy 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That strikes me as unnecessary. All closes should be treated as non-binding on editorial decisions unless the closer explicitly decides that making a decision like that is necessary. Closes like that should be fairly rare. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. Diminishing returns. Not your fault that no one else can be bothered to read guidelines. See you at WP:FICT. Geometry guy 00:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
People don't want an article on Romeo Beckham because they don't like BLPs of minors. Hamnet has been dead for centuries and has been discussed by prominent scholars in peer reviewed journals, so it's a much different situation. Zagalejo^^^ 02:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

← On the initial procedure question, I would attempt to contact the closer first. Any uninvolved admin may reopen any NAC, but I've seen few such reversals, and only for blatant errors.

  • While I personally favor the "stand-alone article" interpretation of AfD, this nomination, with no recommendation to delete, is probably unacceptable by current norms. I'm surprised that no one closed as WP:Speedy keep per Xover, ignoring Sarcasticidealist's request to leave it open.
  • A SNOW NAC in under 12 hours is not appropriate, especially with the current interest in discouraging early closes. That said, I don't support reopening at this time. I would like to see a Talk page discussion first.

On the general merge issue, there is a fairly recent discussion at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Mergers at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been a number of incidents recently of closing AfDs very early, and of non-admins using the WP:Snow clause as though it were part of the AfD process. This is inappropriate, and may be traced to Wikipedia:Non-admin closure which until a couple of weeks ago was urging inexperienced editors to close early after six keeps as a WP:Snow close. There is no hurry to close an AfD; indeed, it is better to let them run the full 5 days as discussions sometimes turn round after three or four days, or even on the last day - when they may need a bit longer. This particular AfD was closed after less than 12 hours exposure, and with a mix of merge and keep statements.

I feel we should have a general discussion on the pros and cons of closing AfDs early (before the 5 days), and on how appropriate it is to use the WP:Snow clause in an AfD, especially by those who don't have proven experience of reading Wikipedia consensus. WP:Snow is there to cut through having a process for the sake of it. However, at AfD we have a simple 5 day rule for a specific purpose - to allow time for a considered response and to provide a chance for a range of views. There is rarely anything to be gained by cutting an AfD short, and much to be gained buy letting it run the allotted 5 days. SilkTork *YES! 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A rather more radical idea for AFD

Given that there's a sufficient amount of resistance against trying to change the scope of AFDeletion to AFDiscussion, I had another possible thought. What if AFDeletion was tightened up as to its purpose, while a separate process (Articles for Comment? AFC?) was created to handle other cases?

Specifically: AFD is to only be used when the article and its history should be completed deleted because the content or topic is not appropriate for WP - sort of the "slip through the CSD cracks" if you will - based on good faith assumptions from the nominator. This relegates it to things like copyvios, COI articles, and the like. But more importantly articles where notability is the primary reason for deletion should not be covered in AFD. AFD should still result in keeps, deletes, and possibly merges and redirects, but the last two possible actions should be used less frequently; AFD really needs to be more black-and-white and should only be reserved for cases where the edit history of the article really needs to be wiped if the article were to be deleted.

That brings us to the AFC process, which in terms of how it would go, should be similar to AFD. However, as with the previous AFDiscussion standpoint, AFC can include merges, issues with cleanup, and the like. More importantly, AFCs can have a longer timeline, on the order or 7 to 14 days (I think 10 would be good). While deletion may still be a possible outcome from AFCs, it should only be considered if there's no point in saving the edit history or the topic is not a valid search term, or the like. Most of what we've previously discussed could go on at the proposed AFDiscussion would be the same for AFC otherwise.

What this process changes emphasizes is that there are certain things like copyvios and other things that do need deletion and deletion in a quick manner but otherwise have been contested from CSD or PROD, or otherwise missed. That leaves AFD for that. But as most AFDs are presently used to challenge the notability of an article, a large number of times when the article is nominated for deletion, they really could be merged and redirected instead, nor is the presence of the article in the short term liable to hurt Wikipedia. Thus, AFC can be more relaxed (the longer time frame), and the results aimed at retention of data over deletion.

The only annoyance is that AFD and AFC would be very very similar process that could be confusing but I think with enough warning templates on both pages to make sure the submitting editor is at the right would help there. But AFCs should enjoy the same benefits that AFDs have with deletion sorting and the like. --MASEM 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To some extent, this is why we have RFCs. On top of that, it's hard to force people to use a process on Wikipedia. Merges and redirects are common outcomes of AFDs, and I think it's healthy to promote those compromises rather than pigeon-holing things into delete/keep. I doubt we'd have much luck stopping people from !voting merge / redirect. Although I suppose we could re-train our admins, but to what end? Randomran (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Although you present a novel idea, I think you would face protest for creating a new instruction creep, just as some of previous proposal received. The deal is how does a person decide where to go, AfD or AfC? I think the criterion of retention of history etc. is very subjective, where there would always be editors who won't agree on certain redirects and would believe that the article be simply deleted. In such cases we might have to devise a new vote in AfD where editors could suggest creating an AfC for article in question. The problem here would again be that people would complain on creation of an adjunct process when the existing process somehow, though poorly, is useful in solving the situation. LeaveSleaves 18:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves has it right. The two ideas cannot be separated, because the editors who review the nominations may find different things. Making it a straight Del/Keep, without options for merges, redirects, and so on, will make many, many people unhappy. AfD already functions, in part as an AfC situation, but with the weight of deletions behind it, which creates pressure to implement redemptive changes to articles, or flat out demonstrate failures in an article. AfC would, by definition, be a step before AfD, and would, almost certainly, be a repeating step before AfD. Bring to AfC, which has no consequences, then it gets minor cosmetic work, then sits fallow till it's AfD'd, involved editors then demand it should've been brought to AfC again ,because, after all, they DID make SOME of the changes the last AfC asked for. AfD gets closed to send to AfC again, lather, rinse, repeat. AfD works much more efficiently for such things, because the consequences are greater, and the time period generally is narrowly defined, though recently i've seen way too much relisting. ThuranX (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I'm not sure that I understand your proposal. Let's say that the dry cleaners down the street decided to create an article on Wikipedia. It's not an awful abuse of Wikipedia, but the mom-and-pop storefront is simply not (ever) going to meet WP:CORP. So it gets taken off to WP:AFC as a non-notable outfit... and then what? And then it gets deleted anyway, so we've complicated the process with no practical benefit? Or then it gets kept in violation of WP:N and WP:CORP, so we've gutted the enforcement mechanism for a widely supported policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a place to get attention drawn to an article and to suggest what needs improvement or whether it should be merged or redirected, even if the nominator does wish to delete it (which would be a bad-faith nom and speedy keep at AfD). I think RfC probably suffices here though. Dcoetzee 07:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Malformed AFD's

The following AFD's were malformed in some way and are still open long after they should have been closed:

What should be done in these cases? relist them? ignore them? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find. I will relist the two that are without (enough) !votes, maybe all three... SoWhy 19:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Okay, relisted all three of them. The second one had some discussion, I wonder where that came from. That one looked like a try at DRV but I didn't want to reopen it there, so I decided to let it stay at AFD. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response/action. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of Template:afd3?

I mean, couldn't people just write (or copy and paste) {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName}} by hand? How would that be worse than writing {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}? Yes, the latter are 16 fewer characters, but people would just copy and paste them, in both cases. --A. di M. (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The number follows the three steps in the nomination process. It's for the sake of consistency. Dcoetzee 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so there is no problem if I just copy and paste the {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/foo}} already at the top of the list and replace foo with bar, right? --A. di M. (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple solution to competing guidelines

I know that this has been discussed before but after reading a current AFD (I won't link it because this is not really about it) where an editor argued that the general notability guidelines didn't matter because the article fails "some other guideline", I make this proposal...

Apply whatever guideline that lets us keep the article.

I realize that there occasionally might be circumstances that would call for an exception to this but when evaluating an article for possible deletion, we should be looking for reasons to keep it and only prod/afd it if none can be found. Furthermore, it would eliminate a lot of wikilawyering over competing guidelines in AFDs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • GNG are only guidelines which means that each individual AFD has some flexibility in deciding the way that the articles will be dealt with. I have always been anxious about some stuff eg ATHLETE precluding against an article on a subject with multiple reliable sources but BLP1E and ONUS also require there to be sufficient sources to write a balanced article rather then a permanent stub. This tension is why we have the problem and since BLP is our most important consideration when we write bio articles I'm nervous about a blanket prohibition to keep. That said I am unimpressed by subguidelines that seek to overrule the GNG but, particularly with BLPs, we need a much more nuanced approach to this problem then this proposal offers. Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and link the AFD that prompted this idea. It's this one and the comment that concerned me was Whether this meets the GNG or not is besides the point; per the basic principles of WP:NFF, a few comments in the media about a film which may or may not go into production is not something tangible enough to warrant it's own article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A note about the process documentation

After placing the template on the article page itself, the editor should hit Preview to get the redlink to the AfD entry, click on it, perform step two (including saving the AfD) and then go back to the article and save. Because the template is substed, the redlink to the AfD discussion will still be unresolved unless the article page is saved again, which generates another (unnecessary) revision. Noes? Just a thought. §FreeRangeFrog 17:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very complicated. I could take this opportunity to point out again that the complexity of this whole process is totally unnecessary and we only do it because we (or rather a few regulars) have got used to doing it, but it won't do any good because everyone loves bureaucracy (sigh) --Kotniski (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But I think most AfD nominations are made using tools like Twinkle, which automates the process completely. I ended up following the instructions only after TW stopped working recently and I had to do it manually for the first time :) §FreeRangeFrog 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

multiple articles

I have found a handful of articles that are about the same type of software that I want to list for deletion. Do I need to list each as their own or is there a way to list them all in one. 16x9 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. Make sure you pay attention to the examples of articles which are a good idea to bundle together. If in doubt, list them separately. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I did... I guess I am "in doubt" and will list them all separately. 16x9 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to discourage early "delete" closes

This is something I have been thinking about for a while but after reading a user talk page discussion about AFDs being closed as "delete" in 1-2 days, I decided to go ahead and propose it.

No AFD discussion should be closed as Delete unless 96 hours have passed except under the following circumstances...

1. The article qualifies for speedy deletion.

2. It quickly becomes apparent during the course of the debate that the subject is completely unverifiable. (WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP etc.)

I picked "96 hours" as an absolute minimum to keep people from wikilawyering in DRV over a few hours. Discussions should ideally run for 5 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for such a limit. If the result of a debate is blatantly obvious (cf. WP:SNOW) there is nothing wrong with closing it prematurely. Also, just such debates are closed prematurely. — Aitias // discussion 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
One minor problem is that different parts of our deletion docs specify different time-lengths...WP:AFD says up to five days but the linked WP:GTD says usually no less than five days. However, I don't think "1 -2 days" can reasonably be considered an "up to five day discussion" unless there really is no possible way an article could be redeemed. AfD is explicitly several days and designed to force fixable articles to be fixed, not just to thumbs-up/down the existing article. I also think a premature-closer has the responsibility to investigate to make sure the AfD has been advertised properly to avoid AfD echo-chamber or merely "early election returns" problems, rather than just saying "we have 48-hr strong consensus, that's good enough for WP:SNOW". Further, if premature-closure (or SNOW) is truly a standard or common part of the AfD-closure arsenal, it needs to be documented in the WP:*D pages. Otherwise, we wind up with exactly this concern (or worse, appearances of non-GF or admin-fiat) again in the future. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "up to 5 days" is good-working common practice, I think. On the other hand "at least 5 days" is not. Most of the debates at a log page are closed before 5 days have expired — a minimum stays for full 5 days (or even longer). And, as explained above, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If there was significant participation (not only one or two participants) in a debate and there is a clear consensus, there is nothing wrong with closing that debate prematurely. Thus, there is no reason for changing the current situation. — Aitias // discussion 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the part where you said "at least 5 days" is not a good working practice. That's why I chose "96 hours" (4 days). It would allow an admin to review the "closable log" (If it's the 6th, the log for the 1st would be the closable log) without worrying about closing a debate "early" ie a debate started on the 1st at 23:59 UT and closed on the 6th at O:00 UT would have ran for 96 hours and 1 minute. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a somewhat recent discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive174#AfD closure regarding whether 4+ or 5+ days minimum was intended. Flatscan (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That's all very well but there is simply no need for it — it would be more bureaucratic however —as explained— without any good in return. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
@DMacks: There is absolutely no offence meant (not at all), but regarding “Further, if premature-closure (or SNOW) is truly a standard or common part of the AfD-closure arsenal” may I respectfully recommend having a look at some old AfD logs? Doing so you'll discover that it is “common part”. :) Best, — Aitias // discussion 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No offense taken:) I know it's often used (and I don't think it shouldn't be used)...s/if/given that/ would be better wording on my part. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I do understand why AFDs (that don't otherwise qualify for speedy something) are closed early. Most AFDs get their !votes quickly (if they get any at all) and then die and it may seem that a consensus forms early. It's tempting to just close them and get it over with. This may be fine for "keeps" (but see my comments in the NAC thread above) but if we are talking about making an article go away, I think it's best to let it run its course even if a "delete" outcome is virtually obvious. A kept article can always be nominated later but there are hoops to jump through to get an article undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend "consensus formed at least 24 hours prior and is stable" rather than a firm time limit. If 6 deletes and 0 keeps or redirects showed up in the first hour, and 24 hours after that there were still no opposes, then I'd call that an early consensus. But if 2 showed up the first hour, then 4 more a day later with no keep/merge/redirects, you should wait until the 49 hour mark before calling it a stable consensus to delete. The same goes if it's 95-5 to delete after 2 hours vs. after 26 hours. You wait 24 hours after the consensus is clear to make sure it's stable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The usual reason against shortening the period is that a number of Wikipedians are only around on the weekend or on week days. I'd much rather extend the normal period to 7 days than shortening it (Speedy and SNOW closures excepted of course).
There are a number of topics where it's not easy to judge if they meet WP:NOTE, e.g. a WP:PROF biography from a non English speaking country, and I'd rather let those stick around for 5 days to give the noticeboard watchers of the respective language (of which there might only be a few) a chance to review it than to delete it prematurely, even if a number of editors found nothing on google and agreed with the nom. We're in no hurry. --Amalthea 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer a 7 day timeline (assuming we unify timelines to 7 days, including PUI), but I have no idea (good or bad) what consensus lies out there on the subject. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I would agree on 7 days. Many people come here once a week. But the first step should be to establish 5 days as the fixed minimum, and then we should consider extending it. . There is in my opinion no reason to remove a good faith afd unless its withdrawn or there's a copyvio or blp problem apparent before the full closing time. There are many reasons to go the full week: Very frequently there are arguments that are not pointed out immediately that change the nature of the discussion. The rapid closing gives a great incentive to pile on keeps and deletes, and discourages rational consideration. Additionally it discourages improvement of the article under discussion. Even if we do not go beyond 5 days, I think the simplest rule is 5 days minimum except in the stated circumstances, or as a rare exception --and that if they are challenged in good faith, then it should automatically be reopened. We've dealt altogether too much in Deletion reviews of early closings that could have been avoided if the full time had been given. DGG (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the flaw in the deletion process that this will fix? Are there regularly deletion discussions being closed early as "Delete" which don't have a strong reason? All I see other than pre-emptive CSDs and blatantly obvious WP:IAR cases is the occasional application of WP:SNOW. Is there some other kind of case you are thinking of? gnfnrf (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
While the AfD page says the deletion discussion lasts "up to five days", and current common practice is to close discussions after 4 days of discussion, this practice is contrary to current policy. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that the discussion "lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so". I find it troubling that the AfD discussions over recent months have been shortening. Two reasons: One is as noted above by DGG and by Amalthea—some editors check only on weekends, or only once a week, and therefore might not have opportunity to discuss if AfDs are closed after four days. If everyone says "delete per WP:N no sources" it is still possible that the whole consensus gets reversed when someone comes in with "I've found several sources; here they are." The second concern I have is the subtle potential problem that it is currently only the admins who do not follow policy to the letter who get to close AfDs. Admins who want to wait the full five days (as the policy asks us) are not closing AfDs because pretty much all AfDs are already closed by then. So it is those admins who operate a little outside of policy who are now determining what constitutes "consensus to delete". I'm not saying there's anything deliberate going on; I think it's probably quite unconscious actually. It's concerning, though. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks for bringing up that last point--very true, and I must have been aware of it, but I never quite had it worked out in words. There should be no advantage given to the admins who don';t follow the rules and close early--whether to keep or to delete. A good example in this sense is PROD, where the articles are automatically marked as being subject to deletion after the necessary time.DGG (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
As a start, would it be reasonable to change this page? For ages it has read, "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days." As noted, this is contrary to what policy actually says. I'd like to change it to "Articles listed here are debated for at least five days." Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Also, just to note: I've made reference to this discussion in another section further down the page, #Timing of the clock. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't read AFD as much as I used to, but I noticed for Friday Jan. 23, several AFDs were closed with 2 deletes, unless nonsense or spam, it seems that these fast closes are harmful to the occasional editor who might not be on every day, which is why we have a 5 day process. It's likely that they'll still be deleted, but there's no harm in someone having the time to research or notice the article. On an unrelated note, it would be preferable if a closing admin would give reasons when they close, as readers would know why without needing to read the entire debate.205.200.79.114 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur that we first need to strictly enforce the current deletion policy, which says that deletion debates must run for at least five days. The only reason to close an AfD earlier, really, is if the page is actively harmful (such as a WP:BLP violation).  Sandstein  09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman, I see a pattern on these policy pages, there are exceptions, like all generalizations, but this seems the pattern:
  1. The editors who enforce the policy are the most active editors on the policy. This makes sense. So in this case, the editors who delete the most, are the most active editors on this policy talk page.
  2. Editors on these policy pages are incredibly resistant to change.
  3. On controversial pages such as this one, editors constantly bring up problems, and they are quickly dismissed.
  4. The majority of editors who edit these policy pages are veteran editors, and many are adminstrators, who are loathe to put any restrictions on their existing power, in this case, to delete and keep articles.
The only effective way to change these policies is to create a RfC, making sure as many people as possible know about the RfC, without breaking canvas rules.
Posting suggestions for large scale change (and even most small scale change) on this page is worthless and a waste of time. Ikip (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing DRVs

As a notice to people who are interested in this issue, I've listed nine bad premature closures from January 29 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1 after the closing administrator in question declined to relist them.  Sandstein  09:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See User:Balloonman's extensive observation on Speedy deletions:
User:Balloonman/Why_I_hate_Speedy_Deleters
See my study on AfD's showing the vast majority of editors who have their pages deleted are new users:
User:Ikip/AfD_on_average_day
See the universal disdain that journalist have about our deletion policies:
Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists
Hope this helps, please let me know where this observation is listed. Ikip (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_50"