Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 65

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 60 ← Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 → Archive 70

Proposing articles for deletion without understanding what it is

Animaajit (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I had taken details from people across Kerala to help me in developing the article - Mukkuva Kerala. The first time it was put up for deletion, it was the lack of citations. I included citations and there - now it says they did not meet standards. I do not understand what more is needed now. Since I am new, help me in understanding what needs to be done; so I will go ahead and do it. I have got tired of this - putting up for deletion. To cap it all, this guy - The Mark of the Beast, thinks he can go ahead and edit as he likes. He has taken away many of the edits without even citing a reason why he has done so. If this is a personal property, please go ahead and do what you think is best. I am not going to bother with Wiki anymore. I feel frustrated that I even spend time to do this.

I'm going to assume you refer to Mukkuva kerala in your comment. The best bet, I think, would be to move the article to your userspace so you could work on it further. Mark of the Beast correctly notes that the text isn't acceptable in its present form, but that's largely a function of the grammar - and I'm betting English is not your first language, yes? So we can fix that. We can also find sources in books or whatever that would show the group to be notable, and that would go a long way to avoiding deletion in the future. He/She removed large sections of the article that dealt with individuals from the area, but that was proper as well - a good rule of thumb here is that an individual isn't important enough to list unless they're notable enough to already have an article on wikipedia. And that probably could've been explained a bit better, I think, but it happens. So, if you're willing, the first step would be to go to the debate and ask for the article to be userfied. Then you can take your time to work up an article that complies with our policies. We can help with that, if you like. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
My remarks are in the AFD discussion related to the specific article in question.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proper non-admin closure?

I'm not sure where this is best brought up, so I'm asking here. Are recent non-admin closures of AfD discussions by User:Bmusician correct? In this case, the debate only ran for 3 days with three editors offering opinions. Also, IE crashes when I attempt to navigate to his userpage, does that happen to anyon else? Rex Racer-X (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew D. Gordon was correct on the merits (and after 7 days, not 3), but I don't recall three editors being enough for a WP:SNOW close. I'd question that one. I'll have a look at the others. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I see several no consensus closes - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjarzai and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prison-Ashram Project. Both had been relisted twice, one had discussion but no !votes, the other had no comments at all. Most of the other closes from the last few days look OK to me. Were there other debates where you had concerns? Have you discussed these with Bmusician? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't a snow close, but it was a clear keep close. It ran for seven days, and was appropriately closed as keep. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm just trying to understand the process better. I guess I am to assume "clear close" in the WP:NADC guidelines has no minimum required for consensus (more than one?). Thanks for the feedback. Rex Racer-X (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think my closure was done correctly. The debate ran for a week with a clear consensus to keep. I did not close the debate according to WP:SNOW. The "no consensus" closures are with no prejudice against speedy renomination. I apologize if my closures have not been valid. --Bmusician 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks fine. I'm not sure what the hell AFD I was looking at, but it wasn't that one. No problem. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This has been raised a number of times before. this close was queried by me but with no reply. Soon after another editor questioned another closure, then another and another. The problem is not only inappropriate use of non-admin closure (which should only be done on very narrow grounds) but also misjudging the outcome or criteria to use.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rescue tag

Apparently the {{rescue}} tag is now deprecated, so the advice on the AfD page needs updating. At least, I need updating on what to do instead! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the information relating to the rescue tag since it has been deleted. It's possible this bit might need to be rewritten but right now it's misleading the reader. Hut 8.5 09:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've pointend the content to the new rescue list that replaced the rescue tag. Diego (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD/DRV policy discussion at Village Pump

FYI, there is a current proposal to modify the AFD/DRV speedy keep procedure in this thread at the village pump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Folowing the discussion mentioned by NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm proposing the following change to the wording of "Carry out these checks" as follows: "4.Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with." would change to: "4.Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If the article has previously been unsuccessfully nominated for deletion, your nomination should acknowledge this and explain briefly why you think the result would be different this time."
The intention is to encourage editors (in a sufficiently flexible and non-prescriptive way) to acknowledge previous nominations and explain why they think it would be different this time, hopefully saving hours of time re-fighting old battles. My belief is that this would be a helpful clarification, in the spirit of the essay section WP:NOTAGAIN. In addition to focusing minds it would help provide a clear justification for an early close if the nomination does not mention previous nominations and the nominator is unable to provide a sensible reason for re-opening the debate, despite prompting by the closing admin. --Merlinme (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The addition sounds good, but the preexisting sentence makes no sense grammatically. How about, "Read the article's talk page for a list of any previous nomination(s) and to see if your objections have already been dealt with. If the article has previously been unsuccessfully nominated for deletion, your nomination should acknowledge this and explain briefly why you think the result would be different this time." Any objections to that? jcgoble3 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Any improved wording is fine by me. Given the previous discussion and no other objections, I'll make the change now. Please feel free to improve further as you wish. --Merlinme (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus at the VP discussion for this change, please wait until that discussion has concluded and closed before touching the page. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 13:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
What discussion? With regard to my specific proposal: [1] I said: "Does anyone actually object to this? If so, could you explain why please? It seems a common-sense approach to me, not imposing any arbitrary limits, but requiring renominations to at least acknowledge recent arguments and give reasons why they wish to re-open the debate. If there's support for more radical measures they could be in addition to this, but I think my proposal can treated separately, essentially as a helpful clarification to guide the renomination process. --Merlinme (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)" In the absence of objections I said I would move it to this Talk page, which I have, and to date no objections have been raised, there or here. --Merlinme (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked this yesterday? That's not exactly allowing people time to comment - especially when most of the original commentators at VPP would have assumed the discussion had died as the original proposal was soundly thrown out. Watering it down and waiting a short period for objections does not equal consensus anywhere round here. I suggest you ask everyone who has previously commented to weigh in again and then see where your consensus is. You can also list the proposal at CENT but you have no consensus for this change. Spartaz Humbug! 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
My proposal is listed, in its own separate section. The only significant comments have been that it doesn't go far enough; this is even after I specifically asked for objections, and even after I said (following no objections) I would assume tacit approval. This is not exactly on an unwatched page. I then raised it here, and again the only comment was broadly supportive. I'm really not quite sure what else I'm supposed to do. You haven't in fact advanced any objections yourself, other than questioning whether I have consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That is surely good enough since the arguments have already been aired in the earlier discussion but since you asked. This is a bad idea because its going to encourage users to argue about process instead of content. Its also a wikilawyer's dream. Its also contrary to WP:CCC and takes no account of whether the previous AFD was defective or closed wrongly. What if a non admin closes it against consensus? Its going to force more users into DRV which is a bad thing for noobs because its so confusing and legalistic. In short. AFD should concentrate on assessing content not looking at who did what when and why. This view is based on being the 5th most frequent AFD closer in the 6 months prior to giving up my bit earlier this year so its informed by a lot of experience of what happens when process trumps common sense. Does this help? Spartaz Humbug! 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you; in general I think you're reading prescription where none exists. All I've asked is that people give a reason when renominating. That's the beginning and end of the proposal. This encourages people to at least consider previous arguments. If, having looked, they think the previous closure was bad, that's clearly a very good reason to renominate. "A few months have passed and I think the previous marginal No Consensus might have changed" is also a reason. "I didn't contribute to the previous debate" is also a reason.

Even if a newbie does not provide a reason, it's certainly open to the admin to prompt the nominator to do so, before even considering an early close. Prompting will, if nothing else, clarify that they have actually looked at the previous nominations. In general, I think this is a useful piece of additional guidance, and I fail to see how it could do harm. To date, no-one else has objected, with three or four comments broadly in favour.--Merlinme (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's really ill-conceived. Please explain how expecting people to justify a renomination against the previous consensus is not a violation of the principle that "consensus can change". Go look through a few thousand AFDs and see how BEFORE is abused to challenge nominations without any reference to the merits of an article. You haven't address the risk of additional wikilawyering and before we allow process to CREEP you have to have a benefit to it. Admins have enough to do without asking them to police the quality of nomination statements. There is a significant issue at AFD around participation rates and quality of arguments and what we need is more focused discussion of content against policy so admins will be able to find a consensus in poorly attended discussions. Adding this will result in processwanking and discussions that ignore the content and will reduce the possibility of finding a clear consensus. That is a bad thing. In terms of consensus you haven't properly addressed my objections and neither has anyoneelse weighed in and I think you will find that we don't vote but look at the strength of argument. Spartaz Humbug! 01:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
a) It is not a violation of the principle that "consensus can change", because "I believe consensus may have changed on this issue", or even "I think consensus should be tested on this again", are both reasons for renominating. I'm not asking an admin to judge the quality of the reason, I'm just asking the renominating editor to give a reason. b) There is a benefit to it: not having to spend hours or even weeks of time refighting old battles, which have been re-opened by people who apparently haven't even looked at the previous discussions. c) It is already part of the requirements that nominators should look at the previous discussions, I am essentially asking them to briefly demonstrate that they've done this. d) Despite numerous opportunities over several days, you are still the only editor to have objected, and while I am of course happy to discuss and try to achieve full consensus on this, I would appreciate it if you were more open to discussion. This is the first time I have ever proposed a policy change; I apologise if I made the initial relatively Bold edit without waiting longer to confirm that I had full consensus, but I honestly thought that I had consensus, as I had given plenty of warning of exactly what I was going to do and not received any objections. I still think the change is within the spirit of the currently existing guidelines and would be beneficial to the process. --Merlinme (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Then its a meaningless change if worthless comments like I believe consensus has changed meet your requirement, so I can't see that this is anything other than process and structure for no benefit.. I see HUT also opposes this at VPP. Spartaz Humbug! 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
But all guidelines are "meaningless" if they can be ignored (which they can, as we are not supposed to be a bureaucracy where policy triumphs over common sense). The current guidelines are unenforceable, as Hut has noted. I still think however that a clarification of "best practice" would be helpful. It is already considered best practice to have looked at previous nominations; I am essentially slightly tightening this by encouraging nominators to demonstrate that they have considered previous nominations when nominating again. If a different form of words would help this, then fine. How about "explain briefly why you wish to re-open the case"? --Merlinme (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, if you add it to AFD, even as best practise its going to be used to wikilawyer. If you want to add it as best practise then I would suggest you found and essay somewhere that doesn't have the flavour of a policy page and add it there. Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - make navigation to previous days' AFDs more visible

After an AFD enters it's second day it falls off the radar screen of many people. This is partly due to the navigation to it being somewhat obscure. There's a nice nav bar to the AFD's for the previous days, but it's under the "Today's AFD" page. Suggest copying that bar to this page as well. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD nomination needs attention

The nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Interscholastic League of Honolulu Football Season appears to have some procedural issues--specifically, not having the standard header that I am used to seeing. Can someone check it out?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed [2] It also was never transcluded to a log, so I put it on today's. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD route inaccessible

Do you guys (m/f) know that the AfD route is inaccessible for editors? I have done 25k edits, I do one TfD a month and such. But now when I start up an AfD I am lost. I am lost. And the bots are hounting me for this ignorance. -DePiep (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Can you provide some examples of what you mean? Spartaz Humbug! 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mapping of Unicode graphic characters you did not WP:TRANSCLUDE the nomination page into the daily log and snotbot did it for you. I also see that their explanation linked the instructions for listing an AFD and that how to list an AFD on the daily log is clearly indicated in those instructions. I presume from your contribs that you do not use Twinkle which would have done all the AFD set up automatically but did you read the how to instructions on WP:AFD before listing the AFD? I can see after being a regulat at TFD where the discussions are plonked straight on the log it might be a bit of a shock to have AFD where each discussion has its own page and is transcluded into the log page. Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for spending such time on this. But really, why should I not be able to perform an AfD (even causing a bot recognisable 'error'!)? For starters, what is "step 3" about? -DePiep (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
At AFD each discussion has its own page and the discussion is transcluded to a log page. Because of the traffic at AFD its not possible to hold the actual discussion on the log page because the edit conflicts from users working on different AFDs at the same time would make it impossible to get your views across. But we still need a log and we still need to wait 7 days to close so the individual pages need to be transcluded. You missed that step in this case and snotbot did it for you. The message on the afd is necessary because the closing admin needs to be able to quickly see if the discussion has run 7 seven days and a more discrete and less noticeable message might get lost in the back and forth of a busy AFD. Does this help? Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Articles for deletion" or "Articles for redirect"?

Editors are currently discussing within Afds whether this process is an "Article for deletion" or "Article for redirection." As if every article is considering "worth saving." Most elementary school articles are now being redirected to the School Board (or whatever). Notability implied.

I tried to "Rfd" a Redirect that was causing a loop in a School Board article and was summarily dismissed by an admin who said that the article had just been Afd-ed (unknown to me) and it "had been decided" to redirect it.

I think we need a separate board to "delete and redirect" articles (separate selection on template) so that there is no confusion. That way no one, not even an admin, can "rescue" a non-notable topic/article from oblivion. Student7 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Since most elementary schools get the same sorts of coverage as high schools, its odd one is accepted now but the other is not. Need to just have a set rule in place is to what is allowed and what isn't, having a discussion at the proper place for maximum exposure, and then stick to it, instead of having to go through this same debate time in again in AFDs. And you certainly shouldn't just decide on your own to wipe out hundreds/thousands of articles for elementary schools, simply because you don't like it. Some AFDs for elementary schools end in keep, others delete/merge/redirect. Seems to be determined at random, based on who shows up to comment and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. Dream Focus 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that most elementary schools get the same sorts of coverage of high schools. For example, in the United States, many newspapers give a significant amount of coverage to high school sports and, in many cases, none to elementary school sports. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If the goal of the nom is to redirect the article from the start, AFD is absolutely the wrong place. There's no admin action required to redirect, and that discussion should take place on a talk page or centralized location if multiple articles are in question.
A redirect decision from an actual AFD (with "delete" in mind) is completely appropriate if other !voters believe the topic can be discussed at a larger article, an oversight that the nominator possibly made.
Inclusion within an article is not equal to being notable. It simply means that in context of the larger article, that topic is deemed important to discuss (and ideally backed by sources). Notability is a measure to determine if we allow a stand-alone article on a topic, and that's it. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not simply rename Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion, and merge the current requested mergers process with AfD. There are 16,000+ pending requested mergers and very little, if any, participation. As a result, it is already a fairly common occurrence for merge discussions to take place here. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A long overdue reform that never seems to gain enough traction. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. There are some articles that can't/shouldn't be technically deleted but the majority of the content should be deleted; for example, List of Doctor Who serials by setting is regarded by most WikiProject Doctor Who editors as something that is more suitable for the Doctor Who Wikia than Wikipedia, but because the problems are "fixable" in theory (but not in practice), AfD is not the right venue. Sceptre (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the assesment by Sceptre and could say the same about Bus related articles. I have three of these at AfD with an intent to Merge/Redirect because I know if I discuss on the talkpage or within the project there will be no consensus for action but by bringing them to AfD the wider community pays more attention to the problem and consensus for an action is formed. The D should be changed to Discussion so that we can deal with these situations. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC) effectively. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Allan Martinson qualify as a candidate for deletion?

There in only one (offline) reference in the article, and I cannot pick out any sources that would be usable in my scant search of the 166k hits that I got after weeding out the social networking site, Yahoo, YouTube, and WP. Someone please advise. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The subject seems to have been involved with several high-profile startups, so you think there'd be some notability - and some coverage to back it. But I can't find much. That's in English, mind - someone who speaks Estonian might have better luck. I cleaned up the link farm a bit, but it still needs attention. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

List of AfD's which require editor attention

I'm trying to come up with an automated, frequently updated list of AfD's which could use urgent attention from editors. Take a look at User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention and the question on the corresponding talk page if you're interested. Thanks. —SW— talk 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Should nominators have to check the history?

I just had an article of mine nominated for deletion because two editors hijacked it to promote the subject while removing the sources in the process. I think that it is a common courtesy to check the history before nominating. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It's already very strongly encouraged to look at the history, because you need to inform the article creator and you have to look at the history to find out who that is. If there's obvious suspicious changes like the wholesale removal of content, it's easy to spot. But I don't think any more than a cursory glance is necessary. Reyk YO! 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Requiring the addition of lines between debates?

No, not a policy proposal; I'm suggesting that we rework the code. I believe that it would be helpful for there to be a simple line either at the bottom of all AFDs or at the tops, so as to make it more obvious where the sections on daily logs begin and end — we have these lines in article sections (they're produced by two-equals-signs headers, but not the three-equals-signs headers that individual AFDs use), and they make section divisions quite clear. In cases of vandalism, ill-formed nominations, or users who have disabled the edit-section option for themselves, it's not immediately obvious where one stops and another starts. What possible downside would there be? Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen only a few particularly long and confusing AfDs, but I rarely browse the daily logs. ---- (4 hyphens) renders as a horizontal rule. They should go at the top (users have a tendency to place new comments at the very end) and be enclosed in <includeonly> tags. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article was never deleted

Resolved
 – Deleted by Smartse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). jcgoble3 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There was an AfD on Edward Kotlyanskiy see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Kotlyanskiy. The clear consensus was to delete it, but it seems that it was not deleted (looking at the history). Can it be deleted? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The AFD was from May 2010, and did indeed result in the article being deleted. It was restored two weeks later and userfied, where the editor (Bballplayer3212) added minor fixes and formatting changes over the next week. They then moved it back to the article space, where it has been ever since. The diff between when it was userfied and un-userfied is here, and showed minimal improvement. Since then, nothing more has really been added, as per this diff, so I'd absolutely be in favor of deletion. The argument at AFD was that the subject isn't notable and that there are no sources to show that he is notable - and there were no sources added to show notability in the almost two years since the AFD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I slapped a G4 tag on it. It's close enough to the deleted version that I think it qualifies. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification - merging during AfD?

We are trying to figure something out over at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge (please join). Is it acceptable to merge an article to another page while an AfD is in progress? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

...Maybe? There's a lot of context that comes into play. If the idea of a Merge is in any way contentious, then I'd say no - wait for consensus to emerge. WP:BOLD factors as well, however. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'm against performing redirects and merges while an AfD is ongoing; it just makes things very confusing. But, there is no concrete rule (that I'm aware of) which would prevent someone from doing it. —SW— gab 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I would think it would be fine to add content to a proposed merge target, as duplication of content is not strictly forbidden. This also makes an eventual merge decision easier, as people can see the end result and that it is satisfactory. Also many merge AFDs unfortunately end up effectively being delete/redirect results because nobody does the merge, so being proactive can only be positive imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As the culprit of a recent incident of such nature, I'll offer my perspective. The problem found is that merge and delete have weird interactions. WP:BOLD is usually accepted because it's easy to revert in case of a disagreement; but reusing content from an ultimately deleted page will always cause problems (whether the merge is done during the AfD or previous to it), since the merged content requires attribution but that one is being hidden under an Admin-only area - which runs contrary to the idea of the always-present wiki history and quick reverts. If there was no such customary practice of always hiding the history when deleting a page this wouldn't be a problem, since only copyvio and libelous BLPs would be hidden (and those shouldn't be reused elsewhere). But the practice to hide all deleted articles in the inaccessible area is bad practice for merges, since it denies attribution of perfectly valid content. Diego (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As a general rule, I think it would be fine. The fact that you've done so would ideally be noted at the AFD discussion (so the person closing the discussion can consider attribution issues). Alternatively, I've occasionally left a merge !vote along with a comment that I'd actually do the merge if the closing admin decided that was the best outcome and would ping my talk page to remind me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

After discussing it at WP Merge, we decided to recommend against it. There is no harm in waiting. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Could an uninvolved admin look at what is going on with this AfD? It was opened at 03.05 yesterday (my time), resulted in some discussion, including a number of constructive suggestions for improving the page. At 21.27 yesterday the editor who opened the AfD (not an admin) closed the AfD, and implemented moves which had clearly not attracted consensus, before I had had a chance to comment on the proposal. I reversed the close, as inappropriate, and posted ny comments. At 04.24 today the same editor closed the AfD again, this time as a "speedy close", and again implemented one of the several suggestions. My instinct would be to reverse the second close, and leave it open for discussion, but I do not want to start a silly and disruptive edit war.

The page has been controversial for years, but that does not seem to be a good reason for overriding WP policies to implement one solution which has not reached consensus.--Mhockey (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant AFD appears to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax, Nova Scotia. I don't disagree with the result, necessarily - a merge seems to work, and it's a logical solution to what is admittedly a sticky situation - but the nominator should not have closed his own AFD, especially after only a day, and especially when it was not unanimous and the level of activity was not in WP:SNOW territory. TPH generally knows what he's doing, though - I'm going to notify him of this discussion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The consensus looks clear to me. It's been five years and all we've done is spin our wheels on this thing. Something has long since needed doing, and I went with the WP:BOLD route. I really don't want this undone because really, how much friggin' longer do we need to wait?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Precisely why I didn't undo it - But turn that around, though. It has been 5 years (!), what's a few more days? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's more time for people to keep dicking around instead of doing things, that's what it is. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This was a bad early close by the nominator. Depending on the previous discussions (which I haven't read), it might be valid IAR to use AfD to expedite things and break an impasse. I don't see any benefits from closing early, and it seems that the dispute has not been resolved. Was this edit the merge? It was reverted, and there were numerous edits to the redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The nomination proposal, "Just blast it to smithereens." is not supported as per the discussion.  Yes, it "might be valid" as a WP:IAR, but WP:IAR is not mentioned in the nomination, and as just noted, the nomination argues for deletion, not for the use of AfD as a substitute RfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked at Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia and saw a few discussions going back to 2007. There are also references to WikiProject discussions. The AfD was probably a bad idea in the first place. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Article sub pages

What is the proper way to propose deletion of an article sub page? aprock (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no subpages in the article namespace. If you are referring to a subpage of a talk page, that belongs at WP:MFD. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tits Out Tuesday

Something not right. I think this is a phony article but Iv'e never deleted a whole article. I kniow there are classifications but am reluctant toi use the wrong one, Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems there is another event on Thursday. Won't someone catch a cold?

 Done

So, is it true you can blank any article page and merge it to another without any RfC, since it's not technically a "deletion"?

I just had an editor call me that You are terribly confused. There are no such things as either "PROD deletion discussions" or "deletion RFCs". Nor does deletion involve in any way blanking and redirection. [3]. "Get a clue" said he in the edit summary. Arghh. The context of this is that I had proposed merging some info from a short article to a better article, and then deleting the shorter one. Oh, my no, I'm told, since our licensing has changed we no longer call this deletion unless we REALLY REALLY delete all history of an article. Which in turn is to be avoided since it erases authorship history on the merged bit. Moreover, if you just blank the page and redirect it, it's not a deletion. Thus, no PROD discusion since no PROD. And apparently, this editor thinks, no need for any sort of RfC for what is effect a merge. Since he went ahead and did just that (blanked the article page and redirected it).

Now, in the past, I've found when you blank somebody's favorite article and redirect it, without some warning or discussion, they tend to get bent out of shape. So what, pray tell, is the proper ettiquette for this?

Looking at this page, what the heck is it, if not a deletion RfC page? Or a PROD deletion discussion page? And I notice that some of the discussions here, whatever you call them, end in suggestions for mergers instead. So I take it that it's not true that any time you feel you can get off with a merger, you can just blank-and-merge ala WP:BOLD. Is that now policy, as this guy seems to think? Your wisdom is requested. SBHarris 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are three main paths to deletion for articles: (1) speedy, in extreme cases where the article needs to go or has no plausible value (see WP:CSD), (2) "proposed" deletions that are supposed to be uncontroversial but we wait a while just in case (see WP:PROD), and articles nominated for deletion following a full discussion (WP:AFD). The first two can be contested, typically by adding or removing templates or having a nice chat on the talk page of the article or the person requesting deletion. There are some approximate rules about how to do this but it's very informal. A third party who considers the article seriously and doesn't see a clear case for deletion can remove the nomination, meaning that it needs a full deletion discussion through the AFD nominatino (perhaps what you mean by RFC). A person who wrote the article or is directly involved isn't normally supposed to do that, but they can ask for help. It's true that merging and redirecting aren't technically deletions. They can happen by simple editor consensus and discussion. In clearcut cases you can just do it, but in less clear or contested cases the normal way is to add a suggested merge tag to both articles in question, then wait to see what consensus brings. It's not as big a deal as actually deleting an article without merging, because the history is still there for nonadmins to see, and a disputed merge can just be undone. Having said that, if you start merging an article over time before people have agreed, you can create some pretty severe version control problems. Blanking an entire article without merging it isn't technically deletion but it achieves more or less the same thing. Whether you call that an unapproved deletion, or simply being way too bold, it's best to make sure whatever you're doing is approved before you do anything drastic. WP:BOLD is supposed to be for cutting around red tape and needless process, not to aggressively do things other people disapprove of. The actual RfC process is one of the dispute resolution means available in almost any content situation, and it's occasionally invoked when editors just can't decide what to do about a merge or some other issue, normally after other ways have been tried. I know that sounds complicated, I hope that addresses your question. Bottom line, if someone doesn't think the articles should be merged and you're merging them, you have a content disagreement you need to work out before proceeding. HTH. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful. So I suppose there is no "AfM" page because even though the merged article disappears, it's not gone-past recall? Doesn't that encourage creation of a lot of crappy records about an article that ended up blanked and redirected? The way WP works is insane. Anyway, I take it you agree that this guy acted out of process and the fact that this is not technically a deletion, but rather a merge and redirect, is not a blanket excuse to do as one pleases? Or is it, since it can easily be undone? SBHarris 00:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you were taken to task by an editor who, while perhaps less civil that we might like, was entirely correct. "Deletion" as we use that term on Wikipedia means the removal of a page's history. Deletion requires elevated privileges to execute and elevated privileges to undo. Once deleted, the page and it's history are no longer visible. Because it requires elevated privileges (and is inherently un-wiki), the process is more restricted than ordinary editing. Merging, removing an unwanted paragraph, blanking, overwriting with a redirect, all preserve the pagehistory so everyone can see and revert your changes if they disagree - no elevated privileges required. That is the critical difference and the reason why page-blanking is not "deletion".
Yes, there are also attribution requirements in GFDL and CC-BY-SA that require us to keep the history of any non-deleted content which is why "merge and delete" is almost universally prohibited.
As you note, however, major changes to established articles can ruffle feathers. The preferred place to discuss a significant change is on the article's Talk page. Kick it around and get consensus there on the page where the involved editors can most easily find it. Elevate to RfC only if the Talk page discussion breaks down.
Surprisingly, it all works. Good luck and happy editing. Rossami (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline) and WP:Merge and delete (supporting essay) are good reading for understanding attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable books?

I have my home page set to random Wikipedia article, and this came up today. I followed it the Category:Books_by_Bernard_Lewis and browsed around there some. These articles have been up for a long time. Is WP a library catalog? Because I see no notability as per WP:BK. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you look for sources that might indicate the notability of that book? [4] is a fairly reliable source from a newspaper, and there seems to be a fair number of references to it in Google Scholar, without journal access, it's not easy to assess just how in-depth some of those references are. It's not obvious to me, from those indications, that the book is in fact non-notable.
To answer the more general question, though, there are certainly at least a few non-notable articles on almost every subject somewhere in the encyclopedia. And certainly some books (such as my own, "Saga: Visions of Iceland") are completely non-notable. If you have carefully assessed the available sources and relevant notability guidelines for an article, there's nothing wrong with taking specific questions to AfD. --joe deckertalk to me 16:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I was asking a general question. I don't have the time it takes to go through all the necessary steps it takes to propose an entire category of books for deletion; the whole process is a time sink that takes away time better spent creating content IMO, but these certainly don't appear to me to belong in an encyclopedia. Thanks for your answer. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, and it was a good question. And there is everything right with keeping your eye on creating content here at the encyclopedia. All the best, --joe deckertalk to me 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Out Out

Could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Out (2nd nomination). The reason I put this article up for AfD in the first place is that I had already boldly redirected it, and the article's creator objected. So I thought the issue should be reviewed and discussed by others. A third editor has taken the bold initiative to restore my redirection and speedily close the discussion. I'd appreciate it if a disinterested party would take a look at the situation and decide if the AfD should be reopened so that more opinions can be heard.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Specific Afd

This Afd has not been properly transcluded into a log of the date of creation. When created, it did not have any of the templates an Afd should have. Could anyone fix it? Thanks. Secret of success 06:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot already fixed it. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 00:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Ya I guess so. Thanks. Secret of success 05:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

11 April?

The link to 11 April is missing from the list of discussions even though there are still open AFDs. 69.196.154.189 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you be specific about where it is missing? It is still at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Past_and_current_articles-for-deletion_discussions_.28AfDs.29 under old discussions. Is there another place its missing? Monty845 00:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It was missing from the Project Page this talk page is linked to but is there now so nevermind. 69.196.154.189 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletions discussions and projects

Are interested projects, i.e. those with a banner on the article talk page, always automatically notified of deletions discussions? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if they have subscribed to Article Alerts. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD close message

The Afd close template on twinkle has apparently been very recently changed (I think in the last few hours) to provide just the check boxes and a box labelled "additional closing rationale" (optional) ". This is a poor interpretation of policy. The use of a more detailed closing rationale is very highly recommended, though not strictly absolutely necessary. Admins who provide no rationale in any contested AfD are always criticized soundly at Deletion Review for not providing a rationale. I've never closed without providing a reason unless it's blindingly obvious, and even then I say just that--and this is the invariable practice of almost all good admins doing such closing. where's the discussion on this? The real question is whether it should be required, not whether it should be merely stated as optional and thus implicitly discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support changing it from "optional" to "recommended". However, I think what may be leading to no (or insufficient) closing rationales is that it, along with the Mr Z man script that it appears to be based on, only provides a 1 line edit field. What I propose is that it be rewritten as a "popup" similar to the one twinkle provides for creating AFDs with a multi-line edit box. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I support changing Twinkle's "optional" to "recommended" or even "highly recommended", and a mutliline text box sounds constructive as well. I have very minor concerns about treating rationales as required--in "blindingly obvious" cases it feels like instruction creep to me. (I *do* intend to provide rationales universally going forward myself, thanks for raising the issue. It costs me little to provide them in even the "obvious cases", and if that deflects one misunderstanding a few years down the road, it's likely worth the trouble.) --joe deckertalk to me 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I also support this. Even when an administrator decides not to provide a rationale when closing the debate, they're expected to explain their decision later upon request, so the rationale is not really "optional" but "can be deferred to a later time"; a "recommended" suggestion more closely remember admins of that. Diego (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible instructions

Part II of the instructions for nomination says:

* Add a deletion sorting template to the nomination, if appropriate.

But there's no indication, not even at the link, as to what the "deletion sorting template" is, much less how to add it. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Instuctions are at the main page, WP:DS. :) Well-restedTalk 08:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any instructions there. Could you point me directly to them? I see a lot of project-member tools mentioned, but no instructions for nominators. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:DS#Templates is what you're looking for, I think. You just add the delsort template to the current (active) afd discussion. Don't quote me, though - I'm not that active in afd these days. :) -Well-restedTalk 09:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother if I were you. In my experience these templates are usually added by people other than the nominator. Hut 8.5 16:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Somebody call... somebody" - California

Surely somebody here can come up with some decisive action to take with the following article, Resident spy. (Someone more knowledgable about article repair/deletion than me) This stub is quite below standard and needs attention. It has been this way for five years. The user who created it no longer exists and no one else seems to care about improving it. I brought it to the attention of help desk, as well as two experienced editors/admins, yet nothing has been done. I think what little info the article contains that is of use, should be sourced and merged into a appropriate article, and this stub should be deleted. But that's just my opinion. Anyone else? - thewolfchild 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT ‑Scottywong| babble _ 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the lengthy reply. As it is, my idea of "fixing" it would be to do what I just said above... "what little info the article contains that is of use, should be sourced and merged into a appropriate article, and this stub should be deleted". I would be willing to do that (when I have the time), but that would entail deletion of the original page. You ok with that? - thewolfchild 21:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody has taken any action because you are the person who wants the fix done, so you should be the one to do it. If it's the best thing you can think of, then either improve it ... or nominate it for deletion, say what you think best, and then let the process determine the outcome. Nobody on this page can delete the article for you; it needs to go through AfD. Nobody here is going to improve the article for you, because it's not our area of interest or enthusiasm. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
oy... I'm not asking anyone to do it for me. I just happened to come across this stub, which by WP standards is a train wreck as far as I'm concerned. I know there's alot of people here who really like to be on top of stuff like that, so I thought I would just point it out. (with some articles, you change just one word and twenty people go nuts, but no one seemes to give a rat's ass about this one) Perhaps there should be an AfR page (Articles for Repair) where people can list articles in need of attention and other people, who like researching, writing and salvaging articles, can select and improve random articles if they feel like. As for me, I don't even consider myslef an 'editor' really, I read alot and I make the odd correction as I go. But what the heck, I guess I'll see if I can do something with it. (kinda' like Scotty's suggestion below) Cheers. - thewolfchild 06:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably better than deleting it would be to source and merge it to an appropriate article, and then turn Resident spy into a redirect to the article it was merged with. Just be bold and do it if you think it's the right thing to do. If someone reverts you, then start a discussion with them to come to an agreement. If no one reverts you, then you're done. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Request review and deletion of article Rami Ranger contains no citations, little image copyright management and is written in a promotional biased style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.168.167 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to nominate List of commonly misused English words for deletion. The reason is:

"Accumulation of original research with no inclusion criteria other than random editors' personal opinions. Tagged for years with various issues, none of which show any sign of ever being fixed. Not encyclopedic material."

Would it be possible for someone to do the necessary on my behalf? Thank you. 86.148.153.31 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, but I can see this is more a book on English usage than a Wikipedia article. Much of the material is unreferenced as it is common knowledge. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're going to have to jump in and create an account if you wish to participate in this debate. Leave a note on my user page if you are are banned or blocked and can't do so and I'll see what I can do. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean by "participate in this debate"? Is there already a debate ongoing? And why would I need an account to participate? I have participated (as a non-nominator) in other deletion debates in the past without problem. I'm just asking for someone to complete the procedural steps to action the above deletion nomination, since I understand I cannot do that part myself. I'm not asking that that person supports the idea. If the idea is not supported then that will become apparent at the deletion discussion. I am not banned or blocked, and never have been. 86.148.153.31 (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, see WP:SNOW. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Re Fred, as per AFD guidelines, users unable to complete steps 2/3 have to request the nomination on this page. After all, accounts are not required, and deletion nominations aren't limited to confirmed users. Whether the article should be deleted is another matter. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. My bad. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys. 86.148.153.31 (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Issus (622)

Apparently I failed creating a proper entry for this AfD, no idea what went wrong or how to fix that. Could somebody be so kind and fix that for me.

On that note a general comment. Isn't it possible to create an easier more streamlined process (using only 1 template for instance), I find the current nomination process relatuvely messy and cumbersome for people who use it only occassionally/rarely.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Use WP:Twinkle. As a registered user, you can enable it thru your preferences page. Twinkle gives you a little menu next to the watch list button that allows you to select "XfD". You enter in the reason, hit the button, and twinkle does the rest. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done - nomination fixed D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thanks--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying the process

The user above makes a good point about how the deletion nomination process is way too complicated. I would think that it wouldn't be too tough to have a bot do most of the work, like at requested moves. For that matter, Twinkle already does that. Here's my idea:

To nominate an article for deletion, post the following at the article talk page:
{{subst:afd0 |reason=reason you want the article deleted}} ~~~~ {{afd0 |reason=reason you want the article deleted}} ~~~~
A bot will then complete the nomination process

The tag on the talk page would look a little like this:

The bot will then complete steps 1 thru 3, instead of making the user do it. After it has completed those steps, it will delete the talk page template. It could also add |failed=yes |date=date and time if the nominating process fails in order to note the need for human attention, both by changing the talk page message and by placing the page in a category. For a failure it will look like this:

I don't know anything about coding, but I would guess that the Twinkle code could be adapted for this purpose without a lot of effort.

Any comments? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that a bot should be nominating articles for AFD, and I shudder to think what would happen if someone dropped a raft of false positives into the mix. But you might talk to Scottywong about User:Snotbot. Snotbot already adds untranscluded debates to the log, for example. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The bot wouldn't nominate anything. The bot wouldn't do anything until an editor nominates it on the talk page. Basically, the bot would follow the editor's command. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure if I'm on board with this. First of all, it is debatable whether it is easier for a novice to figure out how to correctly type "{{subst:afd0 |reason=reason you want the article deleted}} ~~~~" than it is for them to enable Twinkle in their preferences and hit the "xfd" tab at the top of the page, which already completes all of the required steps for them. Furthermore, a bot task like this would allow IP editors to nominate articles for deletion (unless the bot specifically checked for that), which may or may not be desirable. Finally, this type of bot would make it easy for a vandal to make the bot quickly mass-nominate a bunch of articles (again, unless the bot had some rate-limiting logic built into it).
I'm of the opinion that it's not a bad thing for nominating articles to be a little bit difficult to figure out. This bar to entry makes it more likely that people nominating articles actually know what they're doing, understand deletion policies, and aren't just nominating an article because they don't like it or some other silly reason. It wouldn't be difficult to add this type of task to Snotbot's repertoire, but it would require a BRFA, and it would require a discussion somewhere that shows there is a consensus for a bot to perform this task. If my reasoning above hasn't dissuaded you from pursuing this, I'd suggest starting a discussion on WP:VPP about it. If you can get a reasonably strong consensus for the task, let me know and I'll consider coding it up. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 17:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, technically, you wouldn't want them to subst the template, you'd just want to transclude it so that the bot could easily find it. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 17:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Subst has been removed 22:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please help. The John Austin (songwriter) page should not have been deleted.

The following article should not have been deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Austin_%28songwriter%29

All of the information contained in the article "John Austin (songwriter)" is factual. John Austin meets the notability requirements, having worked with many artists of notability, and having released publicly documented works for over 20 years. Paste Magazine has written feature articles on John Austin, and JA's album "Busted at the Pearly Gates" received an honorable mention in Paste Magazine as one of the most important albums of 2002. Please contact Paste Magazine's editor-in-chief Josh Jackson to verify.

Please put the article John Austin (songwriter) back up on Wikipedia. Thank you.

98.117.242.142 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to contest deletions. Talk to the deleting admin or file something at WP:DRV. Hut 8.5 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor evading AfD by creating redirect

An editor has created an identical page Misha B (singer), to one that was subject of an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misha Bryan (singer). They have made Misha Bryan (singer) into a redirect. They have effectively created an inappropriate article (the editor has a history of this) and deleted an AfD notice for an ongoing discussion, disrupting the process. How should this be resolved? Delete Misha B (singer), maybe using speedy A10? Recreate Misha Bryan (singer)? Transfer the AfD to the new page?? Sionk (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD G4 is the criteria for deleting pages that are recreations of previously deleted ones, so I've tagged it as such. The admin reviewing it can compare it with the deleted page to verify it's a copy before deleting it so it should not be deleted inappropriately. The redirect can be targeted at the article for the series once that's done.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The previous article hasn't been deleted yet. I would've thought A10 would be appropriate. A redirect from Misha Bryan is already targeted at the X factor article. Sionk (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
A10 it is.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I interpreted 'subject of an AfD' as that it had been deleted (I glanced quickly at the AfD discussion but clearly too quickly). Yes, while the discussion is underway the page should not be moved, made into a redirect or recreated. Yes, A10 in this case.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, no problem, I impress myself sometimes ;) There are a series of these reality TV star articles being continually created for spurious reasons. It gets complicated! Sionk (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Wade

Hey, I don't know if anyone will see this, but i have put several tags on the page Mark Wade (rugby league) requesting deletion that have been removed by various people. I am the original author of the page, have made all the major edits to the page & it is now eligible for deletion as the player has not played any first-grade football & has left the first-grade club for a local side so the page is not notable anymore. I want it deleted but can't seem to get anyone to do it. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's now nominated for deletion. I can't say for myself whether it's really notable or not, as I know nothing about rugby, but other knowledgable editor should be able to say. Josh, if a person will only be notable if they get a particular sports contract, you shouldn't make the article until they get it - if he isn't notable now, he wasn't notable before, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. Yes, someone told me about the notability guidelines a few months ago so now any new page I make, is only for a player that has played in a top grade game. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

anon voting

Are anons allowed to vote in AFDs? I recently noticed a couple of anons getting reverted and blocked for no apparent reason and I am raising concern for people who edit anonymously so they don't become a victim so I am going to bring up the issue here. 74.102.131.196 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anons are allowed to vote in AfDs, though the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets is forbidden (possibly that is what you saw). Hut 8.5 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You may also see that the opinions of anonymous editors are discounted during the closure even if their comments were not explicitly redacted. Again, the problem is sockpuppetry - too many discussions were being "hijacked" by what appeared to be fraudulent "votes" (and sometimes were confirmed to be fraudulent).
That said, it is important to remember that we are not voting even at AfD. An anonymous editor who makes a detailed comment that is firmly based on Wikipedia policy and precedent will have his/her opinion considered. An editor making a simple "keep" or "delete" opinion without explanation or elaboration (whether anonymous or established) will likely be ignored. Rossami (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied Article Adolf Borsdorf

Hello everyone, i came by this article Adolf Borsdorf which was created by User:Mbak Dede today who had actually just copied and pasted it from Simple English Wikipedia (see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Borsdorf) without any attribution and also did not change any content either, only 100% copy paste. I was not totally sure what criteria will apply so i have asked it here. Will the article be expanded/modified or will it be deleted for being a copy and paste from another Wikipedia ? As the same is done on the Simple English Wikipedia when articles are copied and pasted from English Wikipedia, they are then deleted soon. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing necessarily wrong with copying text from the Simple English Wikipedia provided the text is attributed. Admittedly the author of this article didn't attribute it, but I've now fixed that problem. There's no need to delete the page. Hut 8.5 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The History??

I think this page, as well as talking about the AFD works, it should also explain how we got to this point. I had to do a lot of sleuthing, and finally came to this page: History of wiki deletion process at Meta-Wiki

Like, i didn't even know that the page was called "votes for deletion" until it was changed to AFD sometime in the past. Plus, I've always wanted to know how the AFD/VFD have evolved over time. I think this stuff is really interesting and should be included on the page, or there should at least be a link to the that page from this one.--Coin945 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The same deletion discussion for two articles on the same topic?

Someone created an article titled Shouryya Ray. Then someone nominated it for deletion. In the AfD discussion, people are talking about whether this person is "notable" and whether the news media reports about him are true or just exaggerations. Then someone created a page called Shouryaa Ray, and then someone started an AfD discussion about that one. In that discusion someone wrote:

That discussion hasn't been closed yet, but the above is phrased as if it had closed with a decision to delete.

I went ahead and redirected the latter page, Shouryaa Ray, to the correct spelling, Shouryya Ray.

Are the precedents or standard procedures for this anomalous situation? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to nominate the second version for deletion under WP:CSD A10. If the target of the redirect is deleted, an admin may also delete the redirect. As for the delete per other AfD statement, AfDs are only precedent as to the exact same topic, and as it hasn't closed yet, I would treat that as saying delete for the reasons outlined there, rather then delete per the outcome there. Monty845 16:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not the right solution. Yes, it's a duplicate article, but it's also a plausible redirect, which is why A10 should almost never be used. Redirecting was the correct action. I've closed the AfD as redirect and instructed anyone who might stumble across it to see the real AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondegroovily (talk • contribs)
I agree that A10 is not the preferred answer. The forked article should have been redirected to the first version with a note added to the first AfD. If the AfD is closed as "keep", the redirect is probably plausible. If the AfD is closed as "delete", then the redirect gets automatically deleted under criterion G8. Either way, it's only one discussion. Forked articles are bad. Forked deletion discussions are even worse. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the default for "No Consensus" between "Delete" (the article) and "Redirect" (the article)?

I have a quick question. What is the default for "No Consensus" between "Delete" (the article) and "Redirect" (the article)? There is no discussion of this at WP:NO CONSENSUS? This comes into play regarding Priscilla Chan (physician)--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • You're conflating a couple things. (And also quoting an essay, which is neither policy nor guideline.) If a closer truly closes "no consensus" the default is keep. On the other hand, if there's a question in the closer's mind as to the correct outcome of an AfD where arguments are made only toward delete and redirect arguments, and nothing else, well, the content is going to be deleted (there's a consensus for that) and the question of whether a redirect should be placed is a matter of balancing "redirects are cheap" vs. any consequences that might arise from a redirect that go towards WP:BLP, WP:V, or perhaps WP:NPOV. FWIW, my answer here written without having examined the Chan AfD, so my answer may miss particular umm, particulars of that case. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 02:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In a non-BLP, non-copyvio, non-promotional article, the usual answer would be a redirect per WP:ATD. If the content is problematic in and of itself, such that it should not be available to non-administrators, it should be deleted, then redirected. Either way, the consensus is clear in the hypothetical situation you propose that the content not be kept in its current form. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is very simple if you remember that "redirect" is always a form of "keep". If there is no consensus in an XfD decision, then the default is to keep the pagehistory. That is, do not delete the page. The next part of the decision is whether to keep-as-is or to keep-as-redirect. That, however, is an ordinary-editor decision. To the extent that an AfD debate ends with a recommendation to redirect, that conclusion should be given the same deference that an equally-well attended debate on say the article's Talk page. Both a "delete" and a "redirect" opinion can be reasonably interpreted as against "keep-as-is" when evaluating that consensus, though. Rossami (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If the result of an AfD is to "keep" is the "redirect" proper? And if no AfD is even made - but an editor simply decides to redirect even with opposition, what should occur? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If the result of the AfD is "keep" in any form, then we keep the pagehistory and ordinary editing of the page resumes. A new editor can come across the page and, like with any other page in the encyclopedia, make changes including adding content, removing content, merging content to a new page or even redirecting the entire page. You could do all that before the AfD and you can do all that after the AfD.
        That said, any large edit should always consider the prior discussions about the page and its contents. That discussion most often exists on the article's Talk page and counts as a "consensus" for the page's fate that should not be changed without some reasonable idea that the consensus has changed. If/when your bold edit is reverted, hash it out on Talk. The prior AfD counts just the same as a prior discussion on the Talk page with the caveat that AfDs tend to be well-advertised and well-attended by experienced editors - the comments in the AfD should be given due weight recognizing that expertise.
        Your question about a bold decision to redirect without an AfD is an entirely different question but it is a completely legitimate edit. Any editor can turn any page into a redirect if they truly believe that makes the encyclopedia better. If other editors disagree, they will revert your edit and you all sort it out on Talk - that's the essense of the bold-revert-discuss cycle. AfD has no bearing on that decision since it doesn't delete the pagehistory and doesn't require special admin powers to execute or to reverse. An AfD nomination with a request to merely to redirect the page would be summarily closed as irrelevant. Turning a page into a redirect is not "deletion" as we use that term on Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Grow

My prod of this BLP was removed - but I still rather think that being a publications director for a church does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. I fear the person who removed the prod may think I am after "him" which is not the case - so can anyone else determine if I am right or wrong on this please? The use of a press release naming him as publications director does not impress me as showing Grow's notability. Cheers and thans. Collect (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

new tool for capturing deleted articles

every 1/2 I pickup articles marked for deletion https://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/wiki/SpeedyDeletion James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good luck to you, but be mindful that you're not grabbing the copyvio deletions as well. That's still something that could cause trouble wherever the text is hosted, here or there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the purpose of what appears to be a lot of work. -Scottywong| squeal _ 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose is that there is no place else on Wikipedia that has the potential to do as much damage as speedy deletion. This is where articles are deleted that no one has ever seen. This is where we can lose good editors before we even have them. Having this wiki will be a huge benefit, allowing editors to audit speedy deleters and ensure that articles with real potential don't land in the scrap heap. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Would be grateful if someone could complete nomination process

I have nominated the page List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists for deletion. As per the AFD process for un-registered users I have listed the reason on the article's talk page. As I cannot create a new page I would be grateful if someone could complete the process. --86.147.248.29 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Stuck on 3 June

The links on this page are stuck on 3 June. It is now 10 June. 94.116.5.189 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

They're not stuck on 3 June, the problem is at your end. Try purging the cache. Hut 8.5 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Shawn Welling

I just nominated Shawn Welling for deletion. Since I'm not registered, the WP:AFD instructions said to come here and post a message asking for help: "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." Can somebody reading this please finish the nomination process for me? I have listed reasons why I think the article should be deleted on the talk page. Thank you. 89.252.128.80 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hut 8.5 20:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. 89.252.128.80 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

ArkyBot and Dragons flight

Is there any working AFD summaries that produce outputs similar to the number of ivotes of User:ArkyBot/AFD summary/all and User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/All? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • If there are, they should be burned out with fire. Voting is evil. Nose-counting is exactly contrary to the spirit of the wiki-decision-making process and tools that reinforce the misconception that we're voting do more harm than good. Rossami (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The closest thing I'm aware of is Snotbot's report at User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention. The key difference is that it transcludes the debates that are old, overdue, repeatedly relisted, and largely inactive. It does not highlight vote counts for or against deletion (but does count !votes in total, to indicate the level of activity). The listing is good at finding closed debates still listed as active in CAT:AFD, new debates not properly transcluded (and thus getting no eyes), and old debates that might be good candidates for no consensus (or soft deletion) closes for lack of comment. It also occasionally finds old old debates that someone tampered with, either to reopen the old debate or to start a new one (it's obvious when a months-old debate suddenly shows up on the open list). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be nice to know where the action is at - those having the most participants. User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention looks like a list of those AfD's with the least action, which are nice to know as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, not at all what you were looking for, but the closest thing I could think of. If there's interest, perhaps snotbot could output a list of high-traffic AFDs as well? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about process

Something went wrong with a recent deletion request of mine and I'm trying to find out what it was. I used the "Preloaded debate" method, and the instructions at {{Afd3 starter}} were a little confusing. Do I first have to edit and save the AfD log page and then save the newly created article deletion discussion page (which I did), or the other way around, or does it matter? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Either is fine, though if you save the log page first, you'll need to purge the cache of that page after you save the discussion page, otherwise the debate will show on the log as a redlink until someone else purges or edits the page. jcgoble3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I've requested changes to the template that should hopefully make things a lot clearer. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Your version is much better. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD request from unregistered user

[[5]], rationale on talk page. Many thanks 82.153.97.255 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A complete train wreck of a discussion

The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon is a complete train wreck. I originally nominated it on behalf of some IPs and it was later revealed that Autoadmit is on a crusade against the subject of the article. This makes me think that our articles for deletion policy should perhaps have some way to suspend or close discussions with a large biased outside campaign about it. I'm not sure what to do about this mess. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is a tainted process, per WP:CANVASS. I also agree with the in-process suggestion you withdraw nomination at this time. After a decent interval, another process might be started as semi-protected to weed out all the trolling. The point is that a fair consensus can't be reached. The original intent of those who requested you place the nomination was not to build the best online encyclopedia; it was to attack the page subject. By continuing the procedure (or even arguing the merits), we're feeding trolls, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Auto purge?

Very often I see XfD'd articles with a red link on "at 'this article's entry' on the XfD page". The same may be true of speedied articles with Talk pages, I'm not 100% sure. It goes blue if you put ?action=purge on the URL, but a beginner wouldn't know that. It looks less confusing if it's blue I think. Is there a way the templates or application of them can somehow auto-purge the page? --92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see this a lot when closing AFDs. I review the article and the AFD link is red. This might discourage some editors who come across the article from participating in the AFD because they think the page doesn't exist and therefore the only !votes come from those who follow it from the AFD log pages. It also might lead some inexperienced editors into removing the tag from the article because they think that nobody bothered to create the discussion page. I wonder if a bot can do an "action=purge" on these? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Most bots (including mine) use the API to read and write page content. I'll have to check whether it's possible to initiate a purge via the API. I'll look into it when I get a chance. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, you can purge from the API. User:Joe's Null Bot does this, e.g.,
    my $apires = $mw->api( { action => 'purge', titles => $thistitle} );
or
   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=purge&titles=ThisTitle
Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Finally got around to this. Snotbot is now purging all articles with an AfD template. An article should be purged within about 15 minutes or less of having been nominated. -Scottywong| confess _ 18:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

DRV

As I understand it WP:DRV is designed to assess the propriety of close decisions. Does that include the decision not to close and relist. I.e., if something had 9 keeps and 4 deletes and was oddly relisted, then had 7 more keeps and 5 or 6 more deletes and was again oddly relisted, then finally there was no one left who cared to keep it although the original keepers did not change their votes, is the odd decision not to close under the purview of DRV?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think an odd pattern of relisting may have affected the outcome of the discussion, then I imagine you could list it at DRV after it has been closed just as for any other reason. Hut 8.5 16:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That said, the decision to relist is not a closure. It is a deliberate decision to extend the discussion in hopes of letting the community generate a more clear consensus. I don't know what tangible result you would expect DRV to return if you opened a nomination that "somebody relisted and I think they shouldn't have". The outcome of that decision would almost certainly be "relist it again and see what the community really wants". Rossami (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Preamble needed?

The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today has a lengthy preamble about what AfD is and such. How likely is it that users unfamiliar with the AfD process come to this page first? The obvious point of entry, in my opinion, is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and instead of having a link "Add new AfD section" with all the risks of malformed nominations because the user did not properly follow the rather complicated process step for step, the Today page should just have a simple referral to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  --Lambiam 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Inline-twin engine

I created a page called Inline-twin engine. It was well referenced (over 30), well constructed and non-controversial.

A deletion proposal was placed a few hours ago by User:Dennis Bratland. From memory, I do not remember it to a "Speedy Delete" nor for there to be grounds for a speedy delete.

As I was writing a response to the deletion proposal, User:RHaworth deleted the page and seemingly all record of the proposal with it, without allowing any response or discussion at all.

Could someone else tell me why and what it takes for the page to be restored in order that discussion be held.

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk)

In the log, RHaworth states "deleted page Inline-twin engine (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Straight-two engine)".
Now, this is clearly not so. Could I ask another administrator to look at this?
No discussions of this appear [6], [7]
It does not appear in the proposer's record [8], and it does not appear in the logs, [9]
Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The swiftest course of action would be to simply ask RHaworth to restore the page. If he's not willing, and you don't agree with his reasoning, you can log a request at Deletion review, where other editors can discuss the matter. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you.
Are there any policies regarding the language used in deletion proposals?
I am concerned about the language used in [[10]]. The proposer Dennis Bratland makes a number of statement which are clearly not true and are heavily biased. He has been engaged in a rather heavy handed campaign against my editing recently.
a) there was no opposition to stop me creating it (in fact no previous discussion of its creation)
b) he states I am "stubbornly ignoring all the sources that treat the terms as interchangeable" when, in fact, the expert that he chose clear does differentiate and it is proposer who refuses to discuss this
c) the use of the word "belief", as if it was an element of faith rather than based on 40 expert references
d) describes over 40 separate references on both pages (approx 90 total), and a list 18 unanimous major manufacturers, as "cherry-picking"
Can I ask for it to be re-written in a neutral manner or change it according to procedure?
Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Bridge Boy, this is already being discussed at ANI due to your behavior, and the talk page of AFD is an improper venue. You were given advice on possibly getting it restored, take it and don't drag disputes over multiple venues please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How to nominate a single page for deletion

Steps I, II and III each contain a little advice about what to write in the Edit summary. The wording of the three are very different:

  • Step I says "Include in the edit summary ..."
  • Step II says "Use an edit sumary such as ..."
  • Step III says "Link to the discussion page in your edit summary ..."

Step III is unsatisfactory because it is unclear to all but the most experienced Users. Firstly, there aren’t discussion pages any more – they are all labeled Talk pages. Secondly, it should mention the edit summary first, not last. Perhaps it could say "Use an edit summary that links to the Talk page ..." Dolphin (t) 08:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The "discussion page" in this case is not the talk page of the article, but the actual AfD page for the article you are nominating, the page containing the "deletion discussion". Fram (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it could say "Use an edit summary that links to the deletion discussion page ..." Dolphin (t) 12:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Iurii Botnari

Rationale: Appears to be a vanity article with link to a website, the creator [11] has only used account to make this page and edit it; completely unsourced. 109.176.240.233 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. Reyk YO! 11:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Link not working!

Step 3 link here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Related_pages is not working! --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD request from unregistered user

Ken_McKenna_(attorney) - Justification on the talk page. Does not appear to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. 71.94.79.243 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - I'll look into it, and if I can't find sources which indicate McKenna has any real notabilty beyond the trial, nominate it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually just launched the AfD on the IP's behalf before I noticed that Andy had replied here. Sorry for stepping on toes! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)`

I have a question

I have a question, and shall be grateful for any responses. Was there any reason why the nomination of Taste the Blood Singapore Sling was moved from July 7 to July 14? Any responses will be appreciated - thank you. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean Taste the Blood of Singapore Sling. The nomination was relisted: not enough people took part in the discussion to get a definite result, so the debate was extended for a further seven days. This is implemented by moving the debate from one daily listing to another. Hut 8.5 15:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Many thanks - that clarifies things nicely, and sorry, yes I did mean that album! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishi Bhat (2nd nomination)

The prior AFD is not properly displaying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishi Bhat (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can find no indication there was ever a previous AFD, though the article history does indicate a prod. Is it possible the nominator just made a 2nd nom page due to a misunderstanding or mistake? Monty845 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fulltiming

This article is about what itself describes as "a loose term" referring to a subset of RVers. It is completely OR with only three somewhat relevant external links and is linked by only four articles. It would be best if it were covered in just a few sentences in the Recreational_vehicle#RV_lifestyle section. 69.255.170.55 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you seeking to formally nominate the article for deletion? If so we can copy your above comment to a deletion nomination on your behalf. Monty845 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't know how to nominate pages but if you could do that for me, please do. 69.255.170.55 (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Monty845 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

AFD Request for Deanne Berry

Could someone complete the Afd process for Deanne Berry? I believe I have correctly completed step 1 as described at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you in advance. 67.101.5.196 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done GB fan 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. 67.101.5.196 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke: Should it be nominated?

After reviewing the page for Sandra Fluke, I have come to believe that it firmly meets the criteria for at the very least an AFD discussion. However, the article was re-created in June 2012; (there was a subsequent deletion review, but it should be disregarded as the article was nominated by an editor wishing to maintain it, and as such the result was speedy procedural keep.)

I discussed proposing the nomination on the talk page, but was told that it was too soon, and that I would be berated for nominating the article. As a relatively new registered editor (but long-time ip editor), I'm a little unsure as to how to proceed. I think I have a very strong argument in favor of deletion, and if no one here comments otherwise I'm going to go ahead and nominate it pretty soon. However, I'm still pretty unsure how to proceed. Your thoughts and advice would be extremely appreciated! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • If you want to discuss that article, then the talk page for that article is the best place, as there you will find editors specifically interested in that topic. The talk page here is more about AFD as a whole (the main page, procedures, etc.), rather than individual articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think a nomination is reasonable. The second AfD was dismissed on purely procedural grounds, so it doesn't "count", so to speak, and the deletion review only permitted re-creation and did not require it. In my view, this is a classic case of a person known for only one event, and a living person at that. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Beijing

I'm assuming the correct lising procedure wasn't followed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Beijing. Could someone who knows how please fix the nomination? Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I assume the 7-day discussion period starts right now. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems sensible. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why IPs are banned for starting AFD?

They're even permitted to close AFDs (See WP:NAC).Ibicdlcod (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not banned from starting them, they're unable to create pages in the Wikipedia namespace, however any IP can request an editor create a nomination page for them, I've done it myself for IP's on more than one occasion--Jac16888 Talk 15:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, its a technical limitation, technically we could change all AfD pages to be talk pages and it would remove the issue, but seems like alot of work for the occasional IP nom. Monty845 16:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The abuse potential is nonzero, either. Right now, an IP editor must convince at least one editor in good standing to enact the proposed AfD, which is not too high a bar, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ibicdlcod, see discussion pages created on behalf of IPs here, here and here as examples. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Because IP editors are scum and must be treated as such. Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What an arse!

Is there any merit for this article? sweere-arse is two-and-a-haf lines based on "according to John Jamieson" (who/ what was he? - ok, he was a lexicogtapher and a linguist, but it does not say so). Perhaps it has a place in the Wikitionary, but here? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe ARS could shed some light? pablo 10:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pablo, quoting from ARS, "f an article about an encyclopedic topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ...". It is not the case here. Saying that this is a 'game' is like saying that because kids might amuse themselves by seeing who can spit/ pee the farthest that these can be called games. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
A fundamental misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting it is a viable article, or seriously suggesting to call in the ARS - I was using them as the butt of a joke. pablo 14:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Pablo - you got me! I realised it now as I clicked on "fundamental", with "bottom" as one od its meanings! Touché! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mwhahahaha etc. Seriously though, no - I don't think it is a viable article on its own; maybe as a redirect to childhood games or Scots slang from the 1800s. Or something. pablo 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

First time doing an AfD, just checking

I found this article after hitting the random article button. THe article hasn't been edited since Febuary 2011 and has an Orphan tag, a BLP tag, and a notability tag, all from the same time period. I searched the name in google and didn't find anything in English except a LinkedIn link. Would doing a AfD tag be inappropriate? B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have flagged it on the Serbian Wikipedians' notice board. pablo 09:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD Request for Reconstructive observation

Could someone please create an AFD discussion page for this entry- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructive_observation. I believe the entry should be deleted because it has both been a stub and an an orphan for four years, and as such is clearly unrelated or unimportant to its field. The two main authors that the article mentioned are not notable in the field of the article or elsewhere, and its two citations (one attributed to Geertz and the other to Reik) are poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.133.136 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reconstructive observation. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What is with AfD rudeness - a shortening of fuck you and the horse you rode in on?

I nominated something that I failed to find sources for. An established used ended his comment with "I think the phrase I'm thinking off ends with "and the horse you rode in on." Next." And he wasn't even warned or anything? SL93 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well at least he didn't say "fuck". But you did. Oops so did I.
Really though, it's incivil, and there aren't different rules for AfD so if it upsets you, there's WP:WQA as a second resort. The first would be to talk directly to the user concerned. pablo 00:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I was rude back, but I reverted myself. I decided to come back to Wikipedia and this is one of the first things that happens. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, I've had difficulty recently also with admins keeping their white gloves pristine.  For example, ANI told me it was my job to engage possible sockpuppets on their talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I made a great comment back to him. Admins might deal with me, but Wikipedia isn't happy happy joy joy. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of reasons for the rudeness at AfD. The first I would say is BATTLEGROUND tactics, stoked often by a shifting number of sockpuppets who like to get the good-faith wikipedians who differ philosophically on inclusionism vs. deletionism into shouting matches with each other. If you get bitten on a bit as a nominator, I'd encourage you to look at the deficiencies in your nomination: while rudeness is inexcusable, it may well be prompted by frustration with an error that you've made that the respondent has seen many times from other nominators. If there's no rush to AfD something, I would be happy to help work with anyone who wants to formulate a deletion rationale which focuses on the real issues and help folks deal with the common inclusionist objections to deletion rationales. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll rephrase your above comment: "If you get slapped around by your husband, I'd encourage you to look at the deficiencies in how you did the dishes." Blaming the victim and defending the perpetrator is not the proper response to incivility. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between "understandable" and "excusable"? Something need not be the latter to be the former. Jclemens (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
What was deficient about SL93's nomination? Nobody Ent 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, take a look at this. So "found no coverage" was either inaccurate, or the search was deficient. That's a straight-up Google News archive search, and I just added the country--try it without, you'll get about 18 GNews hits. One search, well architected, should have turned up coverage, but did not. AGF says SL93 didn't do it right, ABF (which I'm including since we're talking about an abusive response) says he lied about searching, and either way might have prompted an understandably negative reaction from an insufficiently polite wikipedian--again, not excusable for the verbal abuse. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't use that exact search term so I did nothing wrong. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You failed to find coverage when you said you searched for it. To be blunt, you should have found something, and whatever search you did that turned up *no* coverage was insufficient with actually stating that you "found no coverage". Do you understand why that might be perceived as a fault? Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I meant that I found no significant coverage. I still have doubts about the so called significant coverage that has been found. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Time out. You just said you found no significant coverage. In the nomination you said you "found no coverage". Not "no significant coverage", not "no coverage sufficient to meet N", or even "no coverage which meets WP:RS". You said "no coverage". If you're now saying that you found some coverage, but that you deemed it insignificant, you're admitting that you wrote a nomination statement that was materially false. While that doesn't justify the rudeness you were subjected to, it might well constitute disruptive editing, as the collegial editing process relies in part on every editor telling the truth at all times. So... did you find "no coverage" or "no significant coverage"? Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. Despite burden claiming the editor who inserts material into an article is responsible for citing it, as you can see it's better just ignore the unsourced crap articles unless you want to deal with the blowback, as you've discovered. Alternatively, you could stick a {{unsourced}} tag at top; this will transform the crap article into a crap article with an ugly tag at top, (like the other 249,068). Nobody Ent 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Rudeness in an articles for deletion discussion. Thank you, Ego White Tray (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Update everyone: I had to shoot my horse. Damn. Lugnuts (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I followed WP:BEFORE so I thought I was good. SL93 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: de:Aerodrome
 pablo 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this a lot over the past couple years: If you nominate an article and miss sources that others turn up, you can expect to be flamed. To a certain extent, that's a risk you take when nominating articles for deletion. Although I'd prefer to do without it, there's not a whole lot that can be done to stop people on the internet from being rude. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to mitigate, actually: just do a decent job checking for sources, per the minimal expectations outlined at WP:BEFORE, and accurately characterize what you find. We've now established in this thread that SL93 did not accomplish that minimum level of searching, even though he asserted that he had. It's really not that high a bar to get over, and I'll be happy to help anyone who wants to learn how to craft the single appropriate Google News search that is all BEFORE expects. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We're not talking the internet, we're talking Wikipedia. What possible motivation would have a sane individual have to subject themselves to "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" for failure to properly dot all the t's necessary to (possibly) get all the fluff off of WP? Nobody Ent 03:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd much rather be told to "go fuck myself" (or similar) by someone who was frustrated that I'd made a poor AfD nom, than have someone snidely imply that I'm insane. YMMV. Jenks24 (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't really thinking about it as an either - or question. Would a possible option be someone telling you "you made a poor Afd nom" instead of the "go f-" or "you're insane" choices? Nobody Ent 03:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I strive to make any constructive criticism I give to other editors as positive and outcome focused (we all want to have the best encyclopedia possible, right?) as possible. Since none of us have the power to change others, all we can do is appeal to their better nature. I see and comment on sub-optimal AfD noms every single day I'm on Wikipedia, and never feel the need to resort to profanity, but I can understand how someone might get frustrated enough to do so--again, understanding is not excusing. And, underneath that unnecessary profanity, there may be a legitimate frustration finding inadequate and impolite expression, hence my focusing on that, because when it comes to reading other users' minds, I got nothin'. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course we can influence others (see Civil resistance) and I'm optimistic the WQA is/will achieve a positive result. Nobody Ent 11:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, obviously. What I was more trying to say is that I can understand why someone who saw a AfD that said "couldn't find sources", then proceeded to click the "news" link and found a bunch of sources could become frustrated and say something regrettable. What I don't understand is why anyone would then question that person's sanity. Jenks24 (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Not that person. What I'm getting at is, given the reception SL93 has received, what possible motivation would they have for ever bothering to nominate another article for deletion. Nobody Ent 15:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
And what about the situation where you didn't make a poor AfD nomination, but someone tells you to "go fuck yourself". How would you feel then? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No one actually said that though. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So now I'm being called a liar. The debate is not even leading towards a keep anyway. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I accidentally left out the word significant and then went to bed. Why can't everyone stop acting so superior? SL93 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No one's calling you a liar. Nobody Ent 15:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. All that's been shown is that your nomination contained a material falsehood--it made exactly one statement, and that statement was completely incorrect based on the omission of the word "significant". That doesn't excuse any rudeness at all, but it does demonstrate how you aren't faultless in this matter. Lugnuts should have been polite, but you should have taken the time to make one good Google News query and post the results accurately and verbosely. Even if you'd said "no significant coverage", you still would have helped everyone out if you had taken another sentence to describe what you did find, since "significant" can be a subjective matter. Furthermore, there was no compelling reason for you to make that nomination on any particular day if you were too tired to do it right. I always encourage editors to edit when they're at their *best*, not when they're e.g. too tired. That was a rather rude way for you to be exposed to the pitfalls of editing while tired, of course, which is why I made my offer to help proactively teach infrequent or new AfD nominators how to make the best possible nominations. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Editing errors are common and should be accepted. To describe one as a material falsehood, while technically true, isn't particularly helpful. What's been shown is we often suck at maintaining our civility ideal. In such an environment, there's no compelling reason for any editor to make a nomination ever Nobody Ent 11:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think characterizing it in such a manner is the best way to AGF while not ignoring the fact that such errors have a quite negative and frustrating effect on those needing to respond to them. At any rate, I think we've probably learned all the lessons we can from this unfortunate exchange, and I want to thank SL93 for asking for input when he was confronted by such a rude response. Jclemens (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Find sources template

I proposed adding DuckDuckGo to the {{find sources}}, used in AfD template. Please comment on this proposal at template's talk page. Please don't comment here to keep discussion in the single location. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to AfD's in general

I have participated in afd quite a few times in the past but one thing i have noticed that slight problem is the layout.

I suggest changing the template that makes the afd to work something like this

Article to be delete Sources for article

Then add a sentence saying "Please respond below with Support or Oppose or Merge with (insert article name) (signature)"

Then add below that "For discussion please use the section below"

Then make "===Discussion==="

This would make a admin job easier to work out a consensus if any and discussion are kept out of itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Disagree - I don't understand the first part of your proposal, but I strongly disagree with the separate discussion section. AfD is not a vote. Putting discussion in a separate section wouldn't help anyone, since admins have to read it all to close the discussion properly. Also, you shouldn't explicitly suggest a merge in your guidance to editors, since AfDs are not a place to propose mergers, and many such proposed merges are garbage. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
the options arent really the issue, it keeping someone discussion someone else vote regardless how you look at it people see it as a vote, there voting with why they think ti should be deleted or kept, afd might not be a vote but that how humans respond to it. the only reason i say that is because a admin trying to close a very heated afd will find it hard to find consensus, as you cant honestly tell me if 50 say keep and 10 say delete a admin will delete ???? because that would fly in the face of consensus--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
for example you havea afd on joe blog death, ser a says delete with his reasons, then under that you have about 5 users discussing the reason for the user reason for deleteiong, why should that affect consensus?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not only about counting people on each side of the debate. The strength of the arguments put forward by the participants affects the result as well. For instance if someone says that an article should be deleted but doesn't give a reason, or does give a reason which is subsequently shown to be wrong, then that person's opinion will be given little or no weight by whoever closes the discussion. Conversely if someone gives a strong reason for deletion which no-one is able to refute, then that person's opinion will be given greater weight. Now the number of people on each side does have some influence, and if two positions are equally valid but one has ten times as many supporters than the other then the debate will be closed according to the majority opinion. However discussions between participants are integral to determining consensus and shouldn't be marginalised or segregated. Hut 8.5 14:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: I would actually love to see Discussion section, because AfD is not a vote, and this would help to somehow separate the voting cruft from the actual source of the outcome — discussion of references and application of policies. Still, we currently have a mix of head counting and discussion, and there are various signs in AfD documentation that it is mainly voting-driven, so probably those should be clarified first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Specifically, the list of sources. There have been numerous deleted articles in the past that had upwards of 10, 20, even 30 cited references. The quality of the references isn't the only reason to delete an article, so while they should be taken into account listing them in the template leads to the possibility of massive clutter. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused; do you mean listing all the sources, or is "Sources for article" supposed to be "Find sources"? Regardless, I'm hesitant about the discussion section, but there is a chance I could be persuaded. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting votes in an AFD discussion - where does it say not to do this?

Sorry about this, but I can't find anywhere that discusses the wikiquette of deleting other people's votes - I have just reverted someone's edit to an AFD where for no apparent reason they deleted another user's "Keep" vote without explanation, and I'm sure this is not allowed, but having trouble finding somewhere on the Wiki sites that says Not To Do This. Can you direct me to the relevant page just in case it occurs again and I need to link to say WP:LEAVEOTHERVOTESALONE or whatever? Thanks. Mabalu (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably covered at WP:TPO, even though AfD are not talk pages. (Plus common sense; don't dick about with others' comments!) pablo 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated! It's not specifically spelled out there either, but it's clear enough from that that it's a bad idea to interfere with others' comments. Mabalu (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Me too" votes

For the record, I was about to revert Avanu's reinsertion. (SpacemanSpiff beat me to it.)

If someone's opinion already has been expressed in a "reasonable, logical, policy-based" manner (and he/she feels that there's nothing more to add), a simple expression of agreement is entirely appropriate and widely accepted.

What, apart from wasting everyone's time, does restating exactly the same argument (in either the same words or pointedly different ones) accomplish? —David Levy 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The new text deprecating "Per Foo" "Keeps" or "Deletes" would only serve as a license to attack other editors or their AFD inputs as "lame" or "lazy" and to demand that the closing admin ignore such input. Certainly I like to see that an editor contributing to AFD has carefully considered the article, the sources, and relevant guidelines and policies, and is not just on a deletionist or inclusionist rampage, but sometimes an editor provides such a good rationale that they have nailed it one way or the other. Repeating an earlier rationale verbatim is not much of an improvement over "Per Foo."Edison (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Per David Levy and Edison. There's no reason to require redundant walls of text when well researched and reasoned arguments are presented earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 04:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Conversely, if that kind of tacit agreement is used with a poorly formed argument, it's worth about as much as the original argument. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. A "per good argument" counts more than a "per bad argument", just like a good argument matters more than a bad argument. (good = articulate, policy-based, and in line with our pillars, of course) Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree. The most typical cases of "me too" votes are:
Both "me too" !votes above are perfectly valid, as there is no need to write more if one has nothing to add to previous statement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens, people aren't going to state, "I agree with the terrible argument made by User:X". They might agree with User:X, but they are definitely not going to claim it is a terrible argument. I agree with the commenter above who says that restating the same argument over and over is unhelpful. But, consensus debates are not supposed to be the same material over and over. If you have no new angle to present, or nothing to add, the comment doesn't really add much. I will agree that sometimes it helps to show that you support a particular editor's viewpoint, but in the example by Czarkoff above, user:Example4 adds *nothing* to the debate at all. It is interesting because that particular example was exactly why I decided to add the language to the AfD page in the first place, except instead of links, user:Example3 had pointed to three other editors. So user:Example4 was referencing a person who was referencing three other people. I don't really want to get into a complicated policy like "second-level me-too votes should not be allowed" or "me-too votes should directly reference an argument, not another me-too vote". It just seems simpler to have 'allow them' or 'discourage them'. Anyway, that's my 2 cents on this. By the way, I had considered taking this question to Wikipedia talk:Consensus, since ultimately that is what we're talking about. But at the moment, I don't consider this to be an issue of overwhelming importance. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course they're never going to say that. The validity of arguments is a large part of what the closing admin assesses. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, I would note that we have some rules related to number of participating editors (eg. Relisting AfDs). Furthermore, "per user:Example" !votes are critical for discussions with policy-based "keep" and "delete" rationales stated, as in such cases the head count of editors finding "delete" rationale stronger then "keep" rationale is the decisive factor for determining consensus. Eg.:
This would make a perfectly valid delete outcome, as most editors concur that proposed sources are unacceptable for purpose of establishing notability, and closing admin isn't allowed to base decision on his personal assessment of sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The common slogan "AFD is not a vote" is correct, but not the whole story. Consensus, coupled with policies and guidelines, is what determines the outcome of an AFD debate. The amount of support an argument has is a major indicator of where the consensus is. If we were to forbid people from explicitly supporting another's arguments with "per X", we would merely see people rehashing the same arguments over and over, which is no better. Demanding that new participants present new arguments is even worse, as we would lose sight of whose arguments are supported and whose are not, it would, for example, make a person who comprehensively lays out all the arguments in favor of his/her side look like a lone voice. When I close AFDs, my task is to find the consensus if there is one. I seek guidance for the close in the debate and policies. What arguments were there? Are those arguments consistent with our policies and guidelines? Are there any case-breaking arguments that simply haven't been adequately refuted? (I once closed a unanimous "merge" vote with a "delete" result since the nom's verifiability concern hadn't been addressed at all, but those cases are quite rare.) Have these arguments convinced other members of the community? All this information is useful when making a decision, and I would hate to create rules that took that away from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with User:Sjakkalle. But seriously, "per x" !votes have a purpose as described above: to indicate community acceptance that a particular line of reasoning is broadly accepted. Forcing editors to rephrase a well-stated position simply because there is a rule against voting does not help anyone. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me in an overall sense. I sincerely hope that consensus closers are being diligent on the points you all bring up and not simply doing headcounts. But I fully recant my heresy :) and I think you have all made excellent points. -- Avanu (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kwasi Danquah III

Can someone restore the redirect to Tinchy Stryder as defined by the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Kwasi Danquah III earlier today? The article keeps getting unredirected. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD for Political gaffe

Could someone please create an AFD for Political gaffe? This article is in a terrible, extremely unencyclopedic state, and frankly I think that it's going to become a battleground during the upcoming election in the United States. Right now, the article is a subjective list of "gaffes", not all of which even have articles. It's an embarrassment, and just asking for trouble. 128.239.158.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It survived an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political gaffes less than three months ago. "It's in a poor state" and "it's going to become a battleground" are not valid reasons for deletion. Articles are only deleted when there is a problem that can't be fixed through normal editing, and if we deleted articles just because editors are arguing over them then we would have to delete all articles about contentious topics. Hut 8.5 10:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but Hut 8.5 is right that we don't usually list an article just because it isn't very good. That being said, I do agree with your POV concerns, but that hasn't really been an issue with the article yet. I agree that the article is terrible, though, and I'm personally not sure how I feel about keeping it. Nonetheless, I'm also going to have to take a pass on listing this one, sorry. I'll drop by and participate if someone does start a new AFD. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, WP:DICDEF and WP:OR seem like more appropriate criteria. I might consider nominating this one after I take a closer look into the subject. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It it ok to nominate every article in a category or is there an easier way?

Basically there is a category of albums called Category:Playlist compilation albums which is albums from the Playlist (album series). They're all compilations released by Legacy Records on behalf of Sony Music recording artists. All of the album's are identical, they're playlists of singles which are compiled and then sold as a CD with emphasis on minimum cost. As such none are promoted by the artist in question or the label that the artist is originally signed signed to. Some of them recieved a review from All Music. None have recieved any converage as a single body of work. Though on some of the pages people have tried to make notable by adding information of the songs which are included. Its my opinion that the whole lot should be deleted. If you look at Playlist (album series), its evident that lots of them already have. I thought i'd ask whats the best way? Should a single nomination be made or will all of them need to be individually nominated? I thought if i used my auto tools people might be like WTF is this guy nomming loadsa articles! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the articles are so similar and the arguments will be the same, nominate them together. Group nominations are common and routine for similar articles. Pick one, nominate it, and then list all the other ones you're including in the nomination. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey... hold on a second. First of all, the reason why most of the albums in Playlist (album series) are redlinked is because at the time I created the article, those articles had not been made. It is not "evident that lots of them already have [been deleted]". You cannot use that as an argument for why the group of articles should be deleted. It is simply not true. By the way, I would gladly like to take part in these deletion discussions. How many are there? How many articles have been successfully deleted? I want to put my two bobs into this supposed mass-deletion.--Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any discussion on this yet. The question is whether these can be nominated as a group or if they have to be nominated separately. I feel they should be nominated as a group, IF they are nominated, since the articles are all so similar. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reopening request

Would it be possible for another editor to re-evaluate/re-open (very few participants) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island province? It was closed by Rcsprinter123 as a keep. I understand I'm obviously involved, but I can't see how it could possibly be a clear keep. A no consensus perhaps. I asked Rcsprinter123, but have received no response. Thanks, CMD (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It was open for two full weeks, and every !vote (2) was in favor of keep. The result is also not clearly inconsistent with policy. I would say a keep close is reasonable, maybe a different closer would have said no-consensus, but its a distinction without a difference in this case. I would urge any reviewing admins to not overturn the close. Also, if you want a formal review of the close, there is always WP:DRV. Monty845 05:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
2 !votes were keep, but surely my nom is a !vote against? And while we're speaking of the "!" in !vote, one of the keeps didn't even give an explanation, being a pure vote. Even if we're counting votes, how is 2:1 a useful vote count? CMD (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies

Many apologies, I tried to add the song by Ocean Colour Scene called I Just Got Over You to this list, but it did not appear to get added to the list (for 4 September 2012) in a comfortable way. Could some one more experienced in these things than me please see to this - that will be much much appreciated, many thanks. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. You're supposed to add the nomination text to its own page (in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Just Got Over You) and then transclude it onto the daily page, rather than putting the nomination text itself on the daily page. Hut 8.5 13:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed - your help is much appreciated. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it does seem to trip a lot of people up. Hut 8.5 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm attempting to create an afd for Corbett national park tour.

I'm attempting to create an afd for Corbett national park tour.

I followed the instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

Doing so did not produce an afd page under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/

My reasons for the afd -- WP:NOTADVERTISING :: Cites no sources whatsoever :: We already have Jim Corbett National Park

Could somebody with an account please create the correct afd page under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/  ?

Thanks -- 186.221.135.185 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll handle it. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have cleaned up the one you created at AFC and moved it to the right spot. GB fan 20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Minimum searching

Regarding this:

  • "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."

Saying "searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform" is a license to kill.

This rule is encouraging bad AfDs. I can show example AfDs. There are many other places and ways to search for example TVNews, an archive of transcripts of every TV news program broadcast. For older topics there is archive.org/books which has more old book scans than Google Books (millions more). There is searching Google in depth 10 index pages or more which can take 30 minutes or more. It's discouraging to see AfD nominators follow the above rule to the letter. I think some people may even be gaming the system to delete as many articles as possible by doing the absolute minimum technically required within the rules ie. not putting any effort into searching beyond 60 seconds. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone be "gaming the system to delete as many articles as possible"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Derail sorry. The point is, editors who nominate for AfD are responsible to do a 60 second check of Google - a 60 second check of Google is not proper due diligence. I save articles from AfD all the time, and it usually takes me at least 15 minutes to find proper sourcing, often much longer. If 60 seconds is the bar for AfD, than over time a large number of articles will get deleted. Nominators should have more responsibility than 60 seconds on Google. Who came up with this rule how long has it been in place? It strongly favors deletionism, for whatever reason or motive.
Did you know.. Wikipedia only requires 60 seconds to check for sources before an article can be nominated for deletion?Green Cardamom (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
First, articles should have sources already in them. If they don't, and there is some reason to believe the article should be deleted, THEN an editor is expected to do a cursory search for sources before nominating. For those who are not on a crusade to delete as much as possible, and who are only coming to AfD when there is a real problem, that is probably enough. The status quo is a good balance. Also, the rule is barely enforcable in all but the most obvious cases and any stricter rule would be totally unenforcable as you wont know how extensive a search they did, just cause you found sources after 15 minutes doesn't mean the nominator would have. Finally, even once nominated, anyone can find sources, point them out, and save the article. Monty845 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
To add to Monty's points: Technically, a user isn't required to do any searching for sources before they nominate an article for deletion. It is common courtesy and they should out of courtesy, but a single bad AFD due to a failure to research, that isn't an actionable offense here. On the flip side, if an editor is constantly not searching and most of their nominations are being kept, they are liable to be given a topic ban to prevent them from nominating articles for deletion, based on the premise that their overall actions are disruptive to the encyclopedia. The system is far from perfect, but is fairly balanced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the case. A user is on an AfD crusade nominating 3 to 4 a day, using the same rationale of nothing in Google. But there is stuff in Google, they just didn't look beyond the first page, a 30 second check, and the AfDs keep failing. How do you deal with something like that? Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hasn't Dennis Brown just answered that? If someone is repeatedly starting AfD's that result in 'keep', report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I can do that. Don't know what the threshold is though, some result in Delete. I think it's a case of someone trawling through Categories going through hundreds of articles looking for potential AfDs and thus using simple Google searches to see if anything comes up empty hits on first try. They don't really understand about the subject of the article they are deleting. It's all about deleting articles. I assume this sort of thing is allowable. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If many of these AfDs are ending in delete, then the user in question is almost certainly acting sensibly and in good faith since other users agree with their argument. If many are also resulting in keep then I'm not sure there's a problem there either; surely it is not a crime to have an opinion that does not gain consensus. As for mandating some minimum level of searching, that's a nice idea in theory but unworkable in practice. The reason is that certain users in the past have misused that privilege by heaping abuse on the heads of AfD nominators ("Speedy keep- OMFG you didn't WP:BEFORE" and the like). There was a big backlash against that attitude and now there is permanent resistance that will make it impossible to ever again enforce checklists or hurdles for AfD nominators. Reyk YO! 23:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't logically follow. AfD outcomes, be they keep or delete, and appropriate encyclopedic outcomes are not necessarily correlated. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The question is whether the user is gaming the system, not whether their opinions gain acceptance or not. Do not conflate the two; that's one way of outlawing dissent. If someone's opinion gets considerable support from other good-faith editors, then that is evidence that their views are held honestly and not disruptive- even if they do not gain consensus. Reyk YO! 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

About 1 in 3 AFDs end in keep, so that is the measuring stick, Being "wrong" 33% of the time is average. If 2 out of 3 of their AFD noms end as kept, there is a problem for sure as that is twice the average. You can look at their total AFD votes, not just noms, here, but it is a good place to pick out their noms. If you see the majority of the noms being kept, then you could compile a list of the AFD diffs, perhaps 20 of the last failed ones, and take them to ANI. To me, the threshold is being off at least 2/3rds of the time or more. Likely, they would be warned the first time, but more eyes would be on them and they would be expected to be right at least half the time after that. Otherwise, they can be topic banned if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis Brown. That is an exceptionally useful tool, and good information on averages. It appears the person in question is having a bad run of things lately getting most things wrong, but they have a long history, and over the longer haul only off about 40% of the time, which is about average. So that tool saved a potential drawn out investigation. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Early closure following speedy deletion

The author of the article involved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Classes has blanked the article and it has now been speedy deleted. As the nominator I'm reluctant to close the discussion so would appreciate someone else sorting it please. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Closed. Monty845 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice one, thanks. Roger and out. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsure what to do with List of Monuments of National Importance in Lucknow circle

This is essentially a list page that redirects to three other lists. I'm not experienced in dealing with situations like this; should the page be deleted? Merged? Left alone? I couldn't find anything in the guidelines that applies to this specific situation. It seems to me that probably the three other lists ought to be merged and redirected into this one, since you obviously can't have a redirect of this one into each of the three others. Or is deletion the correct course? --Batard0 (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to delete it, it's a perfectly valid disambiguation page. Hut 8.5 08:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of large # of articles based on result of one AFD

Currently, I initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels mostly as a test case for about 100-some similar articles that all have the same problems, knowing, in the past, massive noms are always criticized, and in this case, I wasn't 100% certain that my reasoning to delete was going to hold up. Given the present trend (only a few hours into into, but still...) it looks like my reasoning was correct, but of course it needs to run its course. I have spelled out that these other 100-some articles should probably be deleted if this one is, but am not challenging those at this time.

Assuming this closes with a strong "delete" consensus, it would seem that having to repeat the full AFD process on the other 100 articles to be a waste of time, and instead a separate process, to identify which, if any exceptions, should be kept, and then have an uninvolved admin delete the rest. But any suggestions of handling a subsequent discussion would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

AFDs only serve as precedent with regard to the exact same topic, so all of the others will need to go through AFD themselves. However, to save time and effort, they can all be bundled into a single nomination by following the instructions at WP:BUNDLE. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Was there at one time a nomination of Lemon Puffs?

I am pretty sure that the article which I created on "Lemon Puffs" (a type of biscuit) must have been deleted, because it does not seem to be there in Wikipedia now (see the talk page at List of cookies). However, when I typed "Lemon Puffs" into the search box, I did not seem to get any hits for this - does any one know whether there was a nomination for this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The deletion log for Lemon Puff (viewable by clicking the redlink) indicates that it was deleted twice under speedy deletion criterion G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion, so there was no AFD discussion. I can't view the deleted article to see exactly what was wrong; I would suggest contacting Jimfbleak (talk · contribs), who is the administrator that deleted it, for more information. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Or not. A two-line article with a link to store that sells the product won't ever be kept.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakala

Sorry to bother on this, but I'm new. I made an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakala using page curation, but it seems to have somehow been merged into an old AfD for the same subject, while losing the rationale for deletion I typed in (WP:GNG issues, sources not secondary and independent, coverage not significant). I'm not sure what I did wrong here or how to fix it, technically speaking. Does AfD through page curation have bugs, or am I screwing something up? --Batard0 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has since been deleted, so this doesn't matter, but the nomination should have been written to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakala (3rd nomination). Hut 8.5 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I suppose it'll have to be done manually when there is a previous deletion discussion (or perhaps speedy deleted as recreation of deleted article if that's justified, as was probably the case here). --Batard0 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Batard0 Hut 8.5 I was trying to find out the reason for deletion of this article and ended up here. Well, the article i can assure you is completely independent of the previously deleted article and all the citations and references also were properly included. I have done ample research to find out all the secondary sources for the article references. Also, there was no consensus about GNG issues. If there is anything in particular that you found to be a reliability issue, it should have been mentioned in the talk page so that i could do something about it. The article i believe was speedy deleted but i fail to understand why. Please look into it and if there is anything that can be done with the article to restore it please let me know. PriyankaLewis (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis

Deletions should be appealed at WP:DRV, not here. Hut 8.5 10:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Instructions for tracking nominations

To whom it may concern, I've been on Wikipedia for a while now, and I still find tracking AfD nominations to be a confusing mess. Can you write some instructions on smart ways to follow one's own interests. For instance, I'm only interested in journalists/journalism/news industry topics that fall under Wikiproject Journalism. Could you write instructions so that I would not have to wade through all the other nominations. I tend to run into nominations haphazardly, by seeing a notice on somebody's page who edits similar articles or, every once in a blue moon on my watch list. Browsing this page has NEVER been helpful and is, IMHO, a waste of time. I think more people also have this problem than just I. Could you add some instructions? There seem to be many instructions for nominations but not for maintaining one's own interest in the grand project. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting might be helpful for you: they've compiled lists of AfDs by subject matter which you can see here. Hut 8.5 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for you tip Hut 8.5! What do I do if I still can't find journalist neither under "topic" nor "people by category"? Is there a way for WP to generate a list for me that I can tack up on a page and get it refreshed when I visit (like a Signpost delivered to my user page)? I probably won't visit a list like this if I have to go there (is that lazy?), but I would look regularly if were tacked on my page. In short, I'm looking for a "power user" approach! Crtew (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
One option would be to transclude the list you're interested in, perhaps to your userpage or to a subpage. For example {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/News}} (you can collapse it with {{hat}} if it's taking too much space). There isn't a delsort for journalists specifically; they would be sorted either under Authors or simply People — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a good conversation and I agree with Crtew there should be better notification for AfDs. One method would be to track based on Project association, so any article in Project:Journalism that is AfD'd would automatically be listed somewhere, and ideally posted to one's talk page if you subscribe to that. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Some projects have it setup exactly that way, for example see Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines/Article alerts, which is automatically updated by a bot. It would be a matter of proposing it on WikiProject Journalism — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
What about based on category tree? For example my focus is 'literary award' articles which have no special Project but they are Categorized under Category:Literary awards. Using categories seems like it would be the best method to fine tune an AfD watch list. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
What you would want is the intersection between that category and Category:Articles for deletion. Here is a CatScan result, but I haven't done this before so there might be a more effective way. There might be a way to use a script (or similar) so to fetch those results into a page each time it is loaded; let me know if you want me to look further into it — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That's great, didn't know it was possible. Yes scripting the output would be great. I could probably make a csh script on my local unix using cron/wget/grep/diff but it would take a while. If someone else has already done this or something similar but I don't know where to look. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've looked around and I can't see any existing script or tool that could create a report on the fly, but that kind of makes sense as this seems more of an automated bot task. If you want to do it "manually" you can fetch the info from CatScan, or use wget to export the cats directly from Special:Export (see mw:Manual:Parameters to Special:Export) and then calculate the intersection on your side. I've been studying the API to get a bot running but it will take me a while to be ready, so if you don't mind waiting we could propose it as a task; otherwise you can ask at WP:Bot requests, I think it shouldn't be much trouble for any of the existing bot operators to set it up — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Papermachete should be deleted

I cannot find any evidence for this word in Google Books or even on a Google Web search (except for this page itself). All usages appear to be spelling errors for papier mache (something quite different). 86.185.137.150 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I bring a deletion discussion to the attention of the Wikipedia community?

My proposed deletion of a certain article has met with stiff opposition from the article's creator, who apparently has vanity/ownership issues with the article. I have tried to outline to him on the article talk page and in my deletion proposal that the term is a neologism that does not appear in any academic literature, but he will not listen. Apparently, the topic is minor enough that no one else who understands the topic cares to get significantly involved, and since he has "sources" it apparently has come down to "me against him". His "sources" are all primary ones, non-academic in nature, contain countless inaccuracies and were apparently written with an agenda. I worry that since he is so fervent in his defense of his article he will frighten off any outside involvement. Earlier attempts at dispute resolution and asking an administrator met with similar results.

I know posting links to the deletion debate on, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan etc., would potentially count as inappropriate canvassing, but I seriously don't know how I can resolve this. The article is very clever in its citing of sources that look reliable to non-specialists, but to anyone trained in Japanese literature they would clearly ring false.

Any advice?

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Posting links to a clearly relevant Wikiproject would not count as canvassing if the notices were neutrally worded. If you went there and left a message along the lines of "please help me get this article deleted" then yes it would be canvassing, but if you merely said that this discussion could use some more input from people in the topic area then that would be fine. Hut 8.5 08:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
You should also place a project banner on the talk page, then the article will be reported on article alert pages for subscribed projects. This runs no risk of being canvassing as it would be in the projects' scope and reported like every other article with no special treatment. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your helpful advice! The discussion page wound up getting tagged as being part of the relevant WikiProjects by other users anyway. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition of articles to multi-AFD by IP editor when not part of nominator's desired target set

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), I purposely used a subset of a larger group of articles that have similar problems, given my experience in how large multiAFD discussions often go (complaints about # of articles over size of nom). However, I have discovered than an IP has gone around and added the AFD template to the other articles that I would have nominated in later batches. They did not add those noms to this AFD, just simply tagged them, nor made any comment to that effect on this page (I only knew because someone from one of those lists complained).

Is there a proper procedure here? Should they be added even though I would prefer them not to be, or should the AFD tags be removed? --MASEM (t) 16:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Um... although I'm not an administrator, the procedure by IP was improper and incomplete, as these articles are not exactly nominated for deletion. I'll remove them right now. --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD Relisting Bot

I'm wondering if this would be acceptable, but, I've had an idea for an AfD bot. It's quite a simple task: relisting AfDs which have not been commented on. The bot will ignore previous relists and DELSORTs, and only relist after seven days. Some AfDs are left there, sometimes longer than 7 days without being commented on. I can see a benefit in having a bot to do this, so no AfD is lost in the dark. Some example AfDs can be seen at this page. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, but there should never be more than 2 bot relistings--the third should require manual intervention from an administrator. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Any objections? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AFDHOWTO request

I have completed step I for Tony Stringfellow and added the justification for deletion on Talk:Tony Stringfellow. Would someone complete the AfD nomination process? As I point out on the article's talk page, a previous AfD was undertaken in 2008. 67.101.5.130 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Stringfellow (2nd nomination). LegoKontribsTalkM 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-content rationales

Hello, I am seeing a consistent pattern during AfDs. A SPA/COI creates an article about him/her-self, someone notices and eventually it ends up at AfD, usually with some bad blood between the parties, probably involving SOCKS/3RR and other violations by the article creator along the way. The nom will bring up the COI/SPA/SOCK/etc issues during the AfD rationale and some Delete votes will say "self-promotion" etc. without a serious look at the sources, or set higher than normal standards.

My understanding of AfD is that it's purely a content dispute. We are supposed to look at the sources and notability and decide based on that alone. People who use behavioral issues to influence a content dispute are not being fair to other people involved in the content dispute. For example, if I think the article should be Keep based on the sources alone, it's not fair that the bad behavior of another Wikipedia user is being used as a rational to delete. So my question is, why do we allow noms to use COI/SPA and other behavioral things as part of a rationale? Even if these things are established true (they are often just unproven accusations), it seems like there should be no place in an AfD for it (or maybe under certain circumstances?). Is there any guidance to keep AfD discussions focused on content disputes, and leave behavior disputes elsewhere (like COI/Noticeboard, etc..) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to look at the content of the article when you have it at AFD. If one SPA put most of the content in, looking at what the article would be if that content were removed is valid. In some cases, it's not so much about the subject's notability, but rather about whether the article in question is worth editing into compliance, or whether a clean start following deletion is the better course. Even for a notable subject, a few COI editors can taint the whole article. To your question: the debate can be a bit wide-ranging, and should be - how else to get attention on all of the article's issues? But it is the task of the closing admin to review the arguments on their merits. If the closing admin sees that the only Delete !votes consist of "Article written by subject" "WP:COI" and "Original editor is a dick", and the article is otherwise well-sourced and the subject notable, he would be correct in discounting those arguments. The debates where concerns about COI are persuasive are usually the ones where the article has other flaws with sourcing, notability, etc.
tl;dr - Editors can make whatever arguments they will - it's the closing admin who judges their merit and the article accordingly. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"Even for a notable subject, a few COI editors can taint the whole article." This is exactly what I see happening on a regular basis. The first thing a nom will do is poison the well with COI/SPA. The problem is as someone who wants to Keep, I have no recourse. I'm operating solely from the position the sources are good, I don't care about other editors transgressions. Unfortunately I have no tools to fight this well poisoning by noms who use COI very effectively to turn AfD's into unspoken personal referendums, punishments, against other users. I understand the admin should overlook it, and they would never admit to being influenced by it, but still I need some tools to fight this type of behavior and there are basically none. There are no rules that I can find that say you should not be targeting behavioral issues during an AfD. Saying so during an AfD can make the problem worse. Quoting a rule would be ideal. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Your best defence against any COI is to go to that article and fix it. Remove *everything* suspicious. Make it look like a good, neutral article. Yes, its a lot of work. Yes, it may get deleted anyway. Its still your best tool. Have good, solid sourcing. Then, go to AfD and say "Keep it now that I've removed all the advertising, weasel words, self-published sources, press releases, etc. because look what's left" Bonus points if you promise to keep an eye on the article so it doesn't go off-track again. If you need examples, look at User:Northamerica1000's contribs. He's quite good at clean-up.  The Steve  07:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion I can request that someone please complete the deletion process of this article: John H. Steinway. See also the article's talk page: Talk:John H. Steinway#Delete. --84.238.37.197 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The delete nomination is already in process. It will be taken care of per normal process. However, this seems like a plausible redirect to me, is there any stronger reason to delete? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the AFD was not done correctly, so I have fixed it. @IP : You might want to comment on your rationalle for deletion, since I have attempted to put words in your mouth to fix the AFD issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge votes in AfDs

BDD (talk · contribs) has written a good essay about merge votes in AfDs. In short, a lot of these votes don't make sense, or the nominated article has nothing to add to the merge target. Inappropriate merge votes in AfDs is one of the things that makes the merge backlog so frustrating. I ask that all voters think before voting merge, specifically about what exactly would be merged and where in the target article it would go - if you can't answer that question, please don't vote merge. I wonder if we should provide special instructions for admins regarding this? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, here's the essay: User:BDD/Merge what? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Every "merge" vote is in essence a "keep and fix through regular editing" vote. Those sorts of votes inherently make sense at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A "keep and fix" vote does not create a binding order on how to fix it - AfD comments about fixing articles have always been viewed as suggestions. A merge vote has always been interpreted as binding consensus. If it's really the same as "keep and fix", that means that the page's editors would be welcome to disregard the merge suggestion and do something else instead. But I've never understood merge votes that way. And I've even seen cases where the merge target in the closing was obviously the wrong page - once a disambiguation page, and once a college confused with another with a similar name. So those two examples show a serious lack of due diligence on the part of both editors and closing admins. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A merge vote essentially means "the subject is not notable enough for its own standalone article, but there is good content in the article that could be used elsewhere". The only thing remotely "binding" about a merge result is that the article under consideration should eventually become a redirect. Everything else (including where to merge the material, and what material to merge) is a suggestion that can be easily overruled by further discussion on the merge target's talk page. -Scottywong| communicate _ 14:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The only thing unhelpful about a merge vote is if it lacks what the AFD closing admin is exepcted to do: delete after merge, or redirect with merge. That choice by the !voter should be based on their feelings of the article topic (as where it presently lives, including disambig names) is an appropriate search term, and may require admin action to delete if the term is unreasonable as a search term. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Deletion after merge is only really an option if the redirect shouldn't continue to exist after merge, which is a pretty high bar given our "Redirects are cheap" stance. Keeping the source redirect is the simplest way to maintain attribution for the merged material per our licensing. Jclemens (talk)
True, but at the same time if you have an article named "Really Common Term (book)" that has been !voted merge, and where one or more other "Really Common Term" pages exist, then the term is no longer really a good search term, and deletion of the article post-merge is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
If text was or will be copied from the nominated article, attribution must be maintained per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. In most cases, this means keeping the redirect with a {{R from merge}} tag. If the page title is bad, WP:Merge and delete has a list of methods for removing the page from article space. For example, WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page was used on Talk:Richard Mourdock/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape and God's will controversy (DRV 1, 2). Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a merge close does not necessarily create a binding consensus on how to fix it, but it can be 1) pointed to in subsequent merge discussions, to the extent that it DOES specify an outcome, and 2) creates the presumption that 1) the article should not continue to exist in its current standalone form, but 2) there is consensus that it should not be entirely deleted, thus at the very least constraining future discussions meaningfully into "well, how do we best preserve the material worth keeping while not keeping the article as standalone?" Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • see WP:ND3 although it does need a tidy up. Spartaz Humbug! 14:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks to EWT for starting discussion here. Please be bold in editing my essay; I'd like to make it better reflect the opinions of others before I think about pushing it to W space. I agree with EWT that one of the main problems is that AfD results are binding, and I don't think you can say that doesn't apply to merges. Suppose an AfD were closed as delete but the closing administrator just reduced it. No one would stand for that. Now, if we could codify an exceptions for merges somewhere, maybe even in this essay, that could go a long way to addressing the backlog, if not necessarily the underlying causes. Something like if these articles have sat for a while with their merge from AfD tags, a user can be bold in performing the merge, especially such that it can become a redirect without any merging of content. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing on Wikipedia is binding. An AFD may result in Keep and disgruntled editors then strongarm a merger or just nominate it for deletion again. Or the result may be a deletion/redirect/merger which is then subsequently overturned. See WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a keep decision ever precludes a merger, any more than it would preclude a move. So the decision is binding inasmuch as if admin Suzy closed an AfD as keep and admin Bob deleted the article, he'd be trouted at the very least. Likewise, if Suzy doesn't delete an article after closing its AfD as delete, we'd at least prod her on her talk page to follow through. But if it's merged... well, it's someone else's problem. We don't expect the administrator to take any action besides closing the AfD and slapping a tag on the article. I don't think you can say any user can unilaterally ignore that decision to merge. When I've been working on Project Merge's backlog and think an article should just be redirected, I always contact a merge voter and try to convince him or her, as a minimum. However, if consensus leans towards broader discretion for these articles, that might be a good thing. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
We should expect more of the admin than closing merge and slapping on the tag. The admin should look at both articles and make sure that they personally understand how it would be merged and that the suggested target is not in error. If the goof is obvious (Bellingham, MA instead of Bellingham, WA, for example) the admin can fix it and close it, but if there is uncertainty about where or how to merge, the admin should relist and ask the question in their relisting statement. We should expect more of admins than merely calling balls and strikes. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that as it contradicts the role of the admin closing a discussion. The easiest way to avoid supervoting is for the admin to read the AFD and close on the basis of that discussion. Once the admin starts examining articles and checking sources themselves there is an inevitable tendency to view the close through their own predjudices about the article. If a discussion isn't clear about the merge target than the admin can't close with a merge target. The responsibility for careful checking of articles and due dilligence for sourcing and merges is with the AFD participants and if they can't/won't do that right the admin should close as no consensus or relist. DRV is almost certainly guaranteed to relist any discussion where it can be shown that the original discussion lacked adequate due diligence. Spartaz Humbug! 05:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In a perfect world, we could have one admin go through and strike !votes that have no policy basis, or reference old versions (e.g., with fewer/inferior references) of articles, or the like, and then a second one judge consensus on the basis of the corrected AfD. However, the reality is that an admin currently must both evaluate the accuracy of individual statements and then close on that basis, if a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is to be evaluated. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I have sometimes closed discussions as "merge". When I do so, I am only acting in my capacity as an administrator when I close the AFD without deletion. I consider the actual merging process to be an "extra service" done in the capacity of a regular editor, since that part can be redone, or even undone, by any other editor (although undoing a merge when there was a consensus for the merge is usually a bad idea). Acting as a regular editor, I can take a few liberties, such as using some discretion to determine the best target for the merge and redirect, or deciding what parts of the articles should be merged and what parts should be left out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that doing detailed research is beyond reasonable expectations for the closer. Ordinary participation is an alternative to closing or relisting. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"The responsibility for careful checking of articles and due dilligence for sourcing and merges is with the AFD participants and if they can't/won't do that right the admin should close as no consensus or relist." - Spartaz perfectly voiced what I've been trying to say the whole time here. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Just as an FYI, I've "published" the essay and moved it to Wikipedia:Merge what? I've been pleased to see it cited a few times, so it's clear I'm not alone in these sentiments. I've also removed the {{essay in development}} tag after a bit of expansion on my part, but I hope to see it expanded further, especially with more relevant examples. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sample opinion 5 at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) was "A merge recommendation requires more explanation than a keep or delete, since merging involves additional content considerations." It received support from a few participants. I think that the essay classification is a good fit for this guidance. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered nomination instructions

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion:

"Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process."

Could this be amended or exchanged with the suggestion to use {{editsemiprotected}} at the article's talk page? Seems way more sensible to me, because there are more people patrolling CAT:ESP than this talk page, and they are there to help. --78.35.255.194 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Perhaps make a tag specifically for this purpose, something like {{deletionnominationrequest}}, which puts the page in the same categories, perhaps. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Article creator adding deletion sort template

5 days into an AfD with numerous D !votes an editor has added the deletion sorting template to various articles. I was going to ignore this until I looked at the lists he's added it to. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain which is about genealogies. The country lists are ok, ethnic groups is a stretch, fiction I don't think means the sort of made up genealogies, and atheism is clearly unrelated. Is this sort of action ok with people? Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think the sorting is unlikely to change anything. It looks like the editor in question is not dealing with the impending deletion of the article very well, rather then pile on another problem by making a big deal out of the deletion sorting issue, I suggest we just look the other way this time. If it becomes a common issue, or the editor in question keeps doing it elsewhere, I would of course support addressing the issue. Monty845 06:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Technical error: Nested AfDs

There is an error on the log for November 18: several closed discussions (toward the end of the page) are "nested" within each other.

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To be precise: Articles for deletion/Papillon-Method and all other discussions until the end of the page appear within Articles for deletion/Ceasefire's frame; Articles for deletion/Ceasefire and Articles for deletion/Inga Nataya appear nested in Articles for deletion/Off With Their Heads. This can all be seen clearly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 18#Off With Their Heads (song) (scroll from there to the end of the page).
הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This appears to have been fixed: [12] [13] jcgoble3 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-existent AfD listed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology (book) doesn't actually exist, nor does anything appear when searching, yet it's stuck in the AfD log and I can't work out how to remove it. Could someone do this please? Lukeno94 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that an IP nominated it and added it to the log, but did not give a reason here or on the talk page. Looking at the article, it's been tagged with {{notability}} for nearly four years (basically since it was created) and reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article. The best course of action here might be for someone to complete the nomination in their own name rather than simply removing it from the log, but I don't understand what the article is about well enough to be able to formulate a rationale myself. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the disambiguation page Amar Mitra

Shamikbangla (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) The link for Amar Mitra was created from the List of Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Bengali where some one has created an article for Amar Mitra Peddireddy. Now, I being an Indian have never heard of Amar Mitra Perrireddy. While, Amar Mitra (writer) is an acclaimed writer in my mother tongue Bengali. However, there are not many sources on him in the net, may be due to lack of information on Bengali Literature. It should be transformed into a redirect, and in the article about the writer we could add a hatnote directing to Amar Mitra Peddireddy.

Has this person encyclopedic relevance?

Hello everybody,

I stumbled upon the article on Oliver Marc Hartwich and I wondered if this should not be deleted. The request for the article to be created was by an unregistered user, I'm a bit suspicious it might have been Mr. Hartwich himself. Anyway I wonder if any of the following or the combination thereof qualifies for an entry in wikipedia:

- being a freelance journalist that has contributed to some major newspapers - being assistant to a member of the House of Lords - working for a well-known thinktank

To me this article smells like self-promotion. But I'm not familiar with all the guidelines on this. On the german-language wikipedia they delete stuff like this, but then again they go totally overboard there with all kinds of formalities and thats why I no longer like to contribute there. So how is it here, would this be considered a case for deletion? --Hisredrighthand (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We usually determine notability in terms of the general notability guideline, which says that an article subject is notable if it has significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. [14] would seem to meet this standard. Hut 8.5 16:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the information. But just for the sake of understanding, without this controversy about his article on northern english cities, would he still be considered relevant? I just found out he has his own channel on youtube where he has collected about 70 appearances of his on television. Quite the narcissistic type. But I guess this counts as significant coverage too? --Hisredrighthand (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. A TV episode in which he appears isn't necessarily coverage of him if he's just commenting on something else (the sources are supposed to be the kind of thing you could cite in an article), and an appearance by him isn't necessarily independent of him either. Hut 8.5 22:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with today's log

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Heart Will Lead You On is on the log, but no discussion exists.
  2. There is a discussion called "[[{{subst:Round My Family Tree}}]]", which has many markup mistakes, and seems to have been inserted in middle of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flame Kingdom.

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed problem #2 manually. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Problem #1 has been fixed by Snotbot (talk · contribs).
Resolved

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Big Lurch (cosmology)

I don't know what the right process is for a case like this, but the Big Lurch (cosmology) article bothers me. It's a copy-paste stub of an article out of a very brief mention in a Scientific American interview. The first two sources appear to be for that same interview, and the third is just a post from a random forum that copies from/links to various Wikipedia pages. Google fails me due to ambiguity with the other Big Lurch. Big Brake suffers the same problems. ----74.214.44.193 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Update needed?

Should "current discussions" be updated? It seems to be stuck at the day before yesterday. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Article for deletion request

I believe that the article Sophie Firth should be deleted. I have no knowledge of the procedure here; I just saw an article about her on the Recent Deaths pages and was surprised that such an article was considered notable enough for Wikipedia. 86.158.250.133 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi , is world wide famous children writer

Hi ! My very dear wiki friends,Please do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi because this is very famous english article from WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia.Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi has a huge traffic also.Please please , further improve this unique awesome article but do not delete it.Please attach photograph as usual.Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is very famous children writer,poet,educationalist and a very nice person.For God sake ,not to delete this best one ! Thanks eng editors.Thank you very much! Here is some links:

Please get it completed done Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi with the help of above mentioned links but don't delete the unique article.Thanks Wiki editors.God bless you all. --Hasbi syed (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It will probably not help by posting here. Perhaps the Article Rescue Squad is a better place to post a "rescue request". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Any discussions regarding the article should be carried out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi - and I'd point out that a website that states at the top of the page that it is 'based on user submitted articles' is unlikely to have much influence on any decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Please do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi the best english wiki article Thanks Sir !

Oh dear please add Prof Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi's Photo(image) with the best english wiki article Prof Dr Syed Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi,the greatest scholor and senior most educationalist,poet,writer and teacher also. Oh ..Opps...PLease do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi best article from eng wiki .PLease further improve this best article.Prof Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is a world wide most famous literary personality with respect to arts and culture.Don't delete his page while you can further improve this awesome english wiki article , which has seen by millions people by wikipedia.Wikipedia managers like mostly Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi and Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is a running english wiki article. O.K Thanks --118.103.230.43 (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The above as a continued pattern of spam. Similar activity here resulted in a talk page protection in order to stop it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-existent AfD discussion on log for Andres Barreto

187.191.13.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Barreto to the the log for December 18, but did not (could not) start a discussion, and Talk:Andres Barreto does not exist yet. Can someone look in to this?

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If they had provided a rationale for deletion somewhere we could finish the nomination for them, but as you said the talk page doesn't even exist. I've removed the transclusion from the daily log. If they still want to pursue deletion they can request assistance here or on the article's talk page, as indicated by WP:AFDHOWTO — Frankie (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Error in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinking ship statement

  1. The closing header was placed after the title, leaving the tip of the AfD sticking out of the ocean of blue like that of the sinking Titanic.
  2. No closing footer was placed, wrongly marking every discussion below it on the log as closed.

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 21:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To be precise: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 22#Sinking ship statement, and scroll.
הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 21:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Resolved

by LuK3. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD table

I've created a table that keeps track of some voting statistics for all currently open AfD's in a sortable table. You can find it at User:Snotbot/Current AfD's. It gets updated 3-4 times per day. Still a work in progress, so let me know if you find anything incorrect, or if there is anything else that should be added to it. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would create a bot that made it easier to close AFDs improperly? The number of people taking one position or another is only of statistical interest, and shouldn't weigh heavily into any decision. I'd suppress all columns except the ones that show whether it's overdue or not.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't intending for it to be used for closing purposes necessarily, there are already plenty of other tools that can be used close AfD's improperly (like this one). Sometimes it's nice to be able to sort open AfD's by certain criteria, and see which one has the least/most _______ . Are there other criteria that you'd find it helpful to sort by? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 17:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
This table seems useful. If a person had limited time, they might choose to drop into an AfD discussion where the votes seemed anomalous, so having the !votes listed seems to have value. Analogous to the decision whether to participate in an RfA where the predictable result seems like it is going to occur anyway. People would (presumably) rather go to an AfD where they can contribute some key bit of information or rationale rather than cast a me-too vote. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
One particular use case for this that I like: while it's rare, I have come across a few AfDs that needed faster action (in particular, G10 BLPs) by keeping an eye out for AfDs, 24-48 hours old, with 7+ nearly or entirely unanimous Ds/SDs. Not every such AfD deserves speedy treatment (in fact, the vast majority don't), but a few do, and it's nice to have a tool that makes it a bit easier to ferret that out. The table should not be an excuse for poor closes, though. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
So you're looking for Scotty to give you an accurate SNOW forecast? Seems seasonably appropriate in the Northern Hemisphere. :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Thank you Scotty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If I were active at AFD this would be a very useful way of finding out which AFDs need contributions. The participation rate sucks. Spartaz Humbug! 08:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a very good place to find "almost definite" results - e.g for deciding whether any discussions should be SNOWed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Foil imaging

The article reads like an advertisement and only cites a single website/book. 71.167.144.223 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Haigh

Can somebody please continue the deletion process for this page? Mr Haigh is not notable and the page is little more than an advertisement for his services as a commentator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.102.197 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Haigh. Hut 8.5 11:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What is policy on AfD's started by a sockpuppet

Non admin User:LlamaAl has speedily kept several AfD that were started by a sockpuppet. Most of them are do have legitimate nobility problems such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antony Rea (which LlamaAl voted delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Ball (fighter) (which LlamaAl voted delete) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-François Lénogue. What is policy on AfD's started by a sockpuppet? Bgwhite (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy keep is very specific on when the argument can be used. Under applicability, #3 is the pertinent item. Those AFDs that had good faith comments should not have been speedily kept. GB fan 21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A sockpuppet is only a sockpuppet if they are editing the same article/discussion under more than one name. A known sock that nominates an article, but only uses that single account to edit that discussion and related article is in fact not a sock. The AFD should probably not have been speedily kept, unless the socked user was blocked/banned. (In which case the new account is block avoidance, and all procedural actions are inherently invalid.) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Can they be undone then? I voted for delete in a couple of them, so I'd rather be seen as doing/undoing any results. Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have reopened all 3 of those because they all have good faith comments in them. GB fan 22:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted all my edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Gaijin42, but that isn't true. Alternate accounts cannot edit AFDs at all. It violates WP:ILLEGIT, making the account a sock. Any such account can be immediately blocked. Unless the sockmaster is blocked, they can't be deleted, though. Normal practice is to close any AFDs that haven't received any good faith delete votes from other accounts.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the sockmaster was known. I've reverted all edits that I reasonably could, and deleted the one AFD that had received no delete votes. Since the default of an AFD is to keep an article, it's generally not a problem to simply deleted the improperly started AFD. Once someone else has voted "delete", that falls afoul of the language that says that articles that have received substantive edits by other users cannot be deleted, so I've left the other AFDs intact.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there such as a thing as a "bad faith keep"?

I'm not sure what else to call it, but what I'm referring to is people who vote keep for "tons of reliable sources," give no links to any of them, and add none of the aforesaid to the article under discussion. To me, that means that no one really has any interest in working on the article in question, and that leads to a question of "is it really encyclopedic if nobody cares?"

I noticed this in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Tahoe-LAFS, which I nominated because it was overly reliant on primary sources, and I could not readily find any RS on Google. Both voters voted keep because of tons of sources. However, no edits were made to the article between my adding the AfD notice, and the NAC removing it. So I have a quality concern about keeping something that's been tagged as a problem by others for a while, but which people want to keep without wanting to work on it.

There's more to it than that, though. I checked the sources mentioned just now, and I really don't see the RS we need. The supposed GNews hits are 1-2 years old (and mostly not in English) as of page 1. The Scholar references seem to be mainly in footnotes and other throwaways (thanks, and the standard requirement of research to show that the researcher did work to understand the context of their topic, e.g., "X is similar to Tahoe-LAFS", "thanks to the open-source community like Zooko, the developer of Tahoe-LAFS"). There's maybe one good hit on the first page of results, and I'm not even sure about that.

Many times, the burden of proof for keep voters is subjective based on who is doing the close. We have policies and guidelines to address those issues (ILIKEIT, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, BIO1E, and so on), but I think we are not enforcing the need for policy-based arguments on both sides of the AfD process (which is something that also came up at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Diamonds World Tour, with a totally different result).

Thoughts? MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

At worst, if people claim "tons of sources from links above", they should at minimum link them in the AFD as examples of what they call such sources. That 1) at least satisfies WP:V/WP:N's requirement that sources have been identified (though not necessarily added to the article) and 2) allows others to review what they consider as the reliable sources. I would argue, in this case, the NAC closure wasn't appropriate since consensus was not clear, was less than 7 days, and a DRV is appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Sources must exist, and they should be reasonably referred to, for a keep vote based on sourcing as in the example above. Remember, though, that notability is not established by putting anything in the article or even in the deletion discussion--notability exists as the coverage exists, not as it's documented here. So if one can say "Look, the Google news archive source search link has tons of applicable links", that's sufficient, because any other editor can click the tool at the top of the page and see roughly what the editor did. Bad faith keeps would be for e.g. fabrication of sources, not simply for disagreeing with current policy: anyone is allowed to do that, and to articulate their opinion appropriately. And, when consensus is consistently against the existing policies... the policies are changed thereby. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I will point out that both WP:V and WP:N (the latter taking its cue from a rather recent WP:V discussion) that explicit sources have been identified by putting the link or basic source information into WP somewhere reasonable to be found - the article would be best, but a talk page note or even as a response to an AFD attached to the article. Adding that link/source to the article then subsequently become a cleanup act but until that point, that satisifies the minimum requirement for V/N in terms of sourcing. IF you claim notability exists "because there's lot of gnews hits", that can be challenged if its not immediately clear from gnews that there are article. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I used the rationale "A look at google books finds a wealth of references" for Adams dry fly, but that required a single click. I've seen bad faith keeps, where I knew the players and knew they were voting to keep just to goad one of the people on the delete side (back in the AFD wars of 08...) but often a "lots of references" might just be laziness, smugness or found in the search links above and not really malice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely that NAC is inappropriate due to a lack of input in the AfD? It should have been extended by an admin, not closed as a NAC. The first keep was vague, and looks like a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument, the second keep is just a me too rationale. I fail to see how that is NAC territory. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the close is that unreasonable. If an AfD cannot find a single person to essentially second the nomination in a week, while it has attracted 2 keep !votes, closing it keep seems reasonable. Honestly, I think we are too quick to keep relisting AfDs that are far from a delete consensus. As to the titular question of bad faith keeps, they can happen, but there should be an extremely strong reliance on WP:AGF, if they misstate policy, assume they just misunderstand it, if they claim there are a lot of sources, maybe they looked somewhere you didn't, before you can really claim bad faith, the keep voter really needs to make a specific claim that is undeniably wrong, or to get really absurd. Monty845 14:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" - Napoleon Bonaparte Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Hello, MSJapan. I have been in Wikipedia for a while and I have never seen a person editing in bad faith. I have seen the stubborn, the uneducated, the paranoiac, the blunt, the impolite, the suspicious, the nervous, the protective, the arrogant, the narcissist, the shallow, the careless, the politically biased and vandals but not a single person who edits in bad faith. (Okay, maybe you can argue that vandals are editing in bad faith but I can argue that they are not "editing" at all.)
Admittedly, issues that I have seen are as bad as bad-faith editing though: Lack of competence, carelessness, error of judgment, etc. all damage Wikipedia as badly. So, before starting to think about bad-faith keep and aliens extinguishing humanity, think about error of judgment and the pollution.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I never got linked to this discussion or the deletion discussion, so my apology for this late comment. Just to make it clear; I was the one who preformed this closure. Yes, the votes were tacky and unsourced but they were accurate. A quick search of Google Scholar resulted in finding eight references that were more than trivial mentions or throwaways. The age of the google hits make no difference. I feel that the close was appropriate but as stated here (got to love two of the same discussions eh?), "If you feel my closure was incorrect, feel free to undo it at your own discretion". Masem, "was less than 7 days" - This discussion was closed seven days after the discussion was started. -- Cheers, Riley 23:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

When MSJapan says "I'm not sure what else to call it" I think the right answer would be a decision that he did not agree with. To throw around accusations of bad faith when you merely disagree with the decision is a tremendously impolite thing to do and very bad form. JASpencer (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

JA, why you need to follow me around and comment on items you have no relation to just to bait me, I don't understand, but I would much prefer a) that it stop, and b) that it stop re-occuring every time you don't get your way on an article. It is a tremendously impolite thing to do and very bad form. I shall deal with the sourcing with Riley directly. He added references, but not one of them is actually used in the article, which I'm not sure solves the problem.MSJapan (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
MSJapan, any problems you and JASpencer may have should be discussed on your user talk pages, not here. I will start a discussion about the references on the article talk page. -- Cheers, Riley 01:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:SNOW covers this - next time search for sources before nominating several articles. Widefox; talk 11:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • MSJapan, the wikipedia's policies on deletion used to be that we kept or deleted articles based on the notability of the topic. If I have understood your initial question you seem to be saying that there are instances when a potential nominator should feel authorized to nominate for deletion articles on topics that are in and of themselves notable, because they think the current instance needs work, and no one has stepped forward to do the work the nominator feels is necessary. Is this what you meant?
Now maybe I will be told I haven't been keeping up with our evolving standards. But it used to be counter policy to nominate articles for deletion merely because the nominator thought the current instance of the article was weak. We used to expect contributors who had a concern with an article on a notable topic to first try to address those concerns through less drastic measures, like:
  1. trying to improve the article themselves;
  2. voice their concerns on the article's talk page;
  3. place tags that describe their concern on the article, possibly combined with explanations on the talk page;
  4. looking at the revision history, and contacting people who have contributed to the article in the past;
  5. bringing up the article in another fora -- like on one of a related wikiproject's fora. Geo Swan (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I do think there is such a thing as a "bad faith keep". Fabricating or misrepresenting sources is one example. Attacking the nominator is another. I think going "keep, tons of sources" without providing any can sometimes creep up to the line of source fabrication. Reyk YO! 00:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone complete the nomination for deletion for the Marc Mencher article

I don't have an account, so I can't do it, but I think it fails the notability test and he is using the article to promote himself in the spam he sends from LinkedIn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mencher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.220.239 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to complete it, as there appear to be several reliable sources in the references, providing notability per WP:GNG. I'll leave the tag on in case somebody else feels differently, though. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
You're not wrong - there are some decent-looking sources (nb: I have not verified their reliability). Nor do I see any evidence that someone spamming links to their article from Linkedin would constitute a violation of our policies, though the reverse obviously would be. But I usually lean on AGF in these instances. The IP would already have nominated the article, but for the technical issue that IP editors cannot create the necessary pages. If it's a snow keep, it's a snow keep, and if it's a clear delete, it'll be deleted next week. So I'll complete the necessary steps here, and including what I just said about sources and linkedin. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former throne of Württemberg

Can someone take a look at this AFD from back in November that is still active, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former throne of Württemberg, I'm assuming it was not listed at AFD correctly but I'm not sure what the correct procedure is whether it should be listed correctly now or can be closed. - dwc lr (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Resolved. The discussion was closed by user:User:Monty845 on 20 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

how does an unregistered user nominate an article for deletion

I tried to get an article speedy deleted but that failed (and I was accused of vandalism) but the deletion rationale was legitimate, so I am trying to get the article deleted through afd. It appears that an unregistered user cannot complete the process of nominating an article for deletion so how can I get the article deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.216.96 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS. The rationale is that the page was created by a blocked/banned user (User:Latish redone), as well as failing the general notability guideline, in that the topic of most-played rivalries has failed to receive non-routine coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.216.96 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Resolved. User:Hellknowz nominated the article on 20 December 2012 (UTC). Northamerica1000(talk) 01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific Products from Companies

Lately there have been a lot of specific products, mainly from the telecom sector, which have been nominated for AfD. The arguement is that these products do not meet notability guidelines. I see fault with this process for these products as a lot of them are notable and widely used but not widely published. We need to open up a general discussion about this. Wikipedia, IMO, should encompass as much knowledge as humanly possible. The telecom industry has a cult following, deep history and has become the modern day interstate highway system or even the early railroad. As such we need to discuss how relevant each product is and determine a consensus on how to deal with them. I will start below separate of this. Mike (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we eliminate specific product pages for products and merge them into a single table style article. We could provide some general information about the product line, specific models etc and also add content for specific issues, features etc.Mike (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe my little essay here can help? It was written with exactly that situation in mind. It recommends when to create a stand-alone article for the product and when to merge several of them. Diego (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Specific products from Companies should have to meet WP:GNG like everything else. These recent AfDs are all very appropriate in my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Barry Stevens (wrestler)

The subject only appeared once on television and hasn't been heard from since, yet he has an article despite not being notable whatsoever. 68.200.222.137 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think jobbing to Ryback is makes this wrestler notable.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've completed this AFD, which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Stevens (wrestler). I'm also the admin who removed the redlinked tag from the article, so I'm glad to see you came here and posted a rationale we could use. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved: User:Ultraexactzz nominated the article for deletion on 3 January 2013 (UTC). Northamerica1000(talk) 01:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question/idea from an AN thread

I started this AN thread to a talk page request I got to provide a copy of a AFD-processed deleted article to an offsite location. Technically there's no problem with that but then we get into CC-By issues. The thread discusses that we should, at minimum, provide a list of contributors to any version taken this way, but when articles are deleted, external users may not be able to get this.

I wonder if this following change to AFD process where consensus is "delete" is feasible. That is, excluding cases of bogus information or copyright violations or other similar problems (where us retaining the information is of no value), the admin closing a AFD that is "delete" should blank the page, add a redirect template to a viable target, and then fully lock the page, giving the pretense of a deleted article. The redirect page should include a template that points to the AFD and can give the name of the admin that closed it, so that if a user wants to recreate a new page that is sufficiently new content, they can request the unlock from that admin (or barring that to AN). This prevents the "deleted" article from being recreated but allows anyone to review the history of it, including external users who may have linked to the article to provide the contribution history.

The redirect target is the tricky part; some cases will be obvious, some not. If there's no obvious redirect, I'd propose that we have some type of "WP:AFD/Log/YYYY" page that lists all the closed AFD discussions in this manner, which can be the redirect target. These pages can further list the instructions for requesting the unlock to edit further.

Note that this is meant to be different than a "redirect/merge" result. In that case, I'd expect the closing admin to redirect the page but leave the redirect page unprotected, allowing users to recreate the articles without admin assistance. The full protection of the redirect page in the "delete" is to make sure that the page is only recreated if the admin/AN agrees that the new suggested version is sufficiently different to merit that. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AN discussion archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243#Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
And finally, someone who is not an inclusionist realized the problem created by blocking access to the history of deleted articles. Hallelujah! The world as we knew it has changed indeed! ;-) Diego (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
For the redirect target, if there is no plausible redirect, we could just send things to a holding page that explains how to access the history. Though this would actually make it harder to recreate an article then under the current system, where a title is only salted after repeated recreations, and someone must proactively request redeletion. Also, its important to remember that just because an article was deleted on notability grounds or for some other less serious policy violation, it doesn't mean that the history is free from more serious policy violations. Often, AfD nominators will focus on the clearest reason for deletion, rather then a less clear one that implicates a more important policy. For instance nominating for deletion based on a clear WP:N delete rather then a borderline BLP or Copyvio issue. We will also need to consider the impact on low visibility people who have had articles deleted for notability reasons, keeping the revision history could negatively impact their privacy. I think the idea has value, and may be something we want to do, but there are going to be a lot of things to consider. Monty845 17:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I can see a number of potential problems with this.
  • This would make it harder to recreate articles deleted through AfD, because you have to get an an admin to unprotect the page. At the moment you can just restart the article.
  • This would be seriously problematic for BLPs and any article containing material about living people, even if the deletion rationale isn't based on BLP. For non-notable living people we would have information sitting around indefinitely which isn't being improved and which isn't adequately sourced. BLPs would have to be treated under the existing system.
  • The Foundation has in the past expressed strong opposition to proposals to allow non-admins to view deleted pages. They might not be happy about this.
  • In cases where there is no obvious redirect target (the majority, I suspect) we would be cluttering the article space up with large numbers of self-referencing non-article pages.
Hut 8.5 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One thing that make this work a bit better on the BLP issue is revdel; of course we can always say that when BLP are deleted because of being nonnotable or no appropriate redirect target, we actually outright delete the pages for privacy issues.
  • On the first point, I would think that given that our CSD allow for deletion of articles that recreate existing content, a simple admin check to unprotect is a trivial barrier.
  • On the last point, where there is no article-space redirect target, we would redirecting them to some WP-space index/log page.
  • The Foundation's take is a key point. I do note that at minimum we are supposed to provide a list of editorships to comply with CC-BY, and there's talk in the AN thread to have bots to construct these, but that means we need a place to store those lists for every deleted article. We also can have very specific rules when this mechanism can only be used (eg avoiding the BLP issue above), but yea, we would likely need the Foundation's approval for this practice. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's quickly clarify a few points:
  • This is a perennial proposal, and there are reasons for both why this has never been adopted, and for it resurfacing from time to time.
  • IMHO it's more needed than ever given the sad state of AfD in general, and there are ways that we could make it work; not since not all possibilities have been explored in the past.
  • The legal position of the Foundation was stated here (I'm not aware of any other place where they've stated their positions on this subject; if you know some, please post a link to it). It's only against the possibility to show all deleted content, not for selectively deciding to delete problematic content and keep the rest. It seems to be much weaker than what other editors have stated.
  • This procedure of soft delete would be used only for articles deleted by an AfD where editors found that it doesn't create legal problems, such as deletions because of WP:NOT or lack of notability. This is no different than removing unsourced content from BLPs or COPYVIOs - those often remain in the article's history, and may or may not be selectively deleted by admins.
  • I don't think blocking the article so that it can't be recreated would be needed in most cases. We could handle in the same way that we WP:SALT deleted pages, i.e. only if those are frequently recreated; otherwise, a speedy deletion is enough.
  • Soft deletion has a lot of benefits and I'd love to see it success at last. Diego (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
There is still the issue that a delete for violating WP:NOT only says the article violates WP:NOT, and says nothing about whether or not the article also has legal problems. Monty845 18:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That's why we would require the AfD to explicitly request a soft delete instead of a full one; editors in the discussion should make the decision. In any case, the legal status of such page would be no different than any other Wikipedia page that has not been through an AfD discussion. Diego (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Having the consensus be for a soft delete would seem to address most of my concerns. But it would need to be clear to closers that a soft delete would require an active consensus that a soft delete was appropriate, and should not be defaulted to as a compromise position less severe then a regular delete. Monty845 18:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I would expect that we would also have a list of explicit cases that no matter how much the consensus says to "soft delete" that we would still need a "hard delete" (such as attack pages or similar matter), but I am seeing the core of this idea being basically a "soft delete" option to be !voted on. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In general, I favor this sort of outcome for unproblematic content, which is most of what I try to rescue: fictional elements that lack or have disputable independent notability. I agree that this is precisely the best sort of article to use this sort of an option on--not on BLPs, contentious articles, or the like, but just places where the notability becomes the turning point of the AfD. I have always been willing to undelete history on such articles that have been deleted-then-redirected so that redirects can be turned back into real articles and/or merged into the target article. The devil's in the details, of course. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I would not want to make access to deleted articles harder. Rev del is for limited cases, not every BLP issue--or even every copyvio, tho we certainly rev del copyvio when the holder insists on it. Privacy is a red herring--almost all of the time we delete a BLP in spite of the efforts of the subject or the subject's fans to get publicity, not to protect privacy. AfD is complicated enough already without adding additional options--admins can pretty much be trusted to be conservative with undeletion requests; I'm probably as flexible as any, but I certainly turn down most BLP undeletes when there's anything more troublesome than ordinary lack of notability, and I certainly never undelete copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • When you use Special:Export it doesn't export the entire history anymore. It does the first so many edits, and nothing from recent years. You can also export just the current version without any history at all. I have saved numerous articles I saw at AFD by exporting them from Wikipedia with as much history as I could, and importing them to the appropriate wikia. Anyone with importing rights on an offsite wiki should be able to request a full history transfer of any deleted article, and transfer it on over. Thus people can find a more appropriate place for it. Dream Focus 09:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support this proposal. This soft delete is excellent compromise, and it is different from the standard perennial proposal of allowing access to deleted articles. --Cyclopiatalk 11:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's also interesting the flip side: what is the legal status of deleting a page and blocking its history? All content is licensed under CC-BY and anyone can reuse it anywhere, provided it's properly attributed. The official recommended way is to place a link at the edit summary pointing back to the article. But if that article is later deleted, all the copied content will be left without attribution, which is an automatic copyright violation. So I don't think defaulting "Deleted" AfDs to block all history is a good idea at all; only content with other legal problems should be redwalled by admins, just like it's done at regular history pages.
So, given that the propose has received a good acceptance, what is the next step to keep the ball moving? I suggest an RfC at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Diego (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to content reused on Wikipedia (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material) or elsewhere (WP:Reusing Wikipedia content)? A list of authors should be available via WP:Requests for undeletion or the new Special page proposed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243#Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think here (WT:AFD) is the right place, but an RFC advertized at CV, VPP, CENT, AN/ANI, and probably a few other places. However, I think there's a few details that we want to be sure about:
  • Are soft-deleted pages fully protected - though can be unprotected if a user asks and has good reason to do so in recreating the article?
  • How do we handle the redirection of soft-deletes that don't have a good target redirect page? And/or do we have a running log in WP where such pages are listed and provided as a redirect target? --MASEM (t) 16:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think protection is required. A soft-deleted article would be in a similar situation to a blanked article, only with a consensus after it - a bold revert would require better arguments than BRD. The page could be speedily blanked again if consensus doesn't change.
  • For articles without a good redirect target, maybe a template similar to R with possibilities could be created? This would have a short text similar to the current deletion notice, pointing to the history and the discussion where deletion was decided. Diego (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • See, I'm a bit worried about the protection aspect. If we don't put protection on the blanked article, this is basically coming down to, technically, "Redirect", which is never a reason to start an AFD. I feel that a nominator should be able to start an AFD with a "soft delete" when the material is otherwise not harmful to WP but otherwise should be blanked, and if there's no technical difference from a "redirect", this may not fly over since its long argued that AFD is not "Articles for discussion". The protection makes its use at AFD necessary since that's an admin action, but removing that protection should be a trivial request to the closing admin or otherwise at ANI. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see the problem, nor the need for protection. Protection would have the negative effect of making the article *more* difficult to recreate after a soft deletion than a full one, which doesn't make sense. I see AfD as a vehicle to build consensus - admin action is only one of the possible outcomes, but (blank and) "redirect" is also a current common outcome; this proposal doesn't change the current procedure, only adds new information to it and would make that outcome more frequent. The difference is that a one-editor WP:BLAR can be reverted by anyone for any reason, and a soft delete would require having a new approach to recreate it - just like an incubated article, but dormant in main space and thus more accessible and less centralized. Initiating an AfD proposing "soft delete" would be a request for a "social" protection of the delete, instead of a technical one, a protection based on consensus to keep the content removed unless it's significantly improved. Diego (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the one thing I see as an issue is that if a soft delete is just a blanked redirect (maintaining history) but not protected, any anon user can undo that, while with a hard deleted article, it requires as least autoconfirmation (the ability to create new articles). If even we had a semi-prot to prevent "recreation" by new editors, that might make it sufficiently different from a redirect. Again, my concern in this proposal is to make sure this isn't just a glorified redirect process that would be rejected by the community because AFD is not "Articles for Discussion". I know there's other aspects that we can justify this with, but the process is just one of them, and I'm not seeing protection as being that hard a barrier to require removal to make it an issue as to differentiate the process. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, a semi-protection for autoconfirmed users is a different matter. What didn't make sense was setting the bar higher and always requiring a request to an admin in order to re-create the article, when that's usually not needed for articles that were deleted. Diego (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_65"