Template talk:Article for deletion/dated/Archive 1

Redundant?
Isn't this redundant with afdx? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's used by {{subst:afd}} (formerly {{subst:AfDU}}) to transclude the AfD instructions onto the page, reducing the wikimarkup in the page itself. --ais523 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Plainlinks
sudo

Change the class attribute from  to , to hide the external link icons on what are actually internal links. Thanks – Gurch 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Adambro 12:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness someone has done this
At last... Well done. Rich Farmbrough, 09:30 19 May 2007 (GMT).

AFDnote
All of the other deletion templates have a notice on the bottom making it easier to notify the author of deletion. AfDM does not. I have gone and worked up some code that I think will work, based off dated prod:

[ Author(s)] notification template:. By the way, we seem to be having quite a few of these templates; perhaps some should be merged? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambox background color
Can someone set the background color on this template to match db-meta? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be brought up on Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes or there should be consensus here before this change is made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rescue template integration
It has been suggested that the current Article Rescue Squadron Rescue template be deleted and that it's functionality be integrated into the AFDM template via a parameter to allow articles that are thought to include encyclopedic topics to be flagged for rescue. Please comment on the TfD page. - Fosnez 12:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this would mean updating the 'text' parameter to include something like;


 * Likely along with a link to WP:ARS, WP:ICU, WP:CU, or wherever this all eventually ends up when any merging and renaming gets sorted out. Users would then just update the existing AfDM call on the article to add a '|cleanup=yes' parameter at the end in order to display this additional text. --CBD 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have copied the template and coded the integration into to. Please view the template here and the template in action here (the top two examples). Whats is the process for me to get this integrated into the official AfDM? (The "rescue" paramater will need to be fed through from the AfD template) Fosnez 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See the TfD of rescue; it seems likely from that that consensus would be against this change. --ais523 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I understand of the debate, the flagging of articles that contained encyclopedic topics, but were badly written, was considered to be a good idea, but the main issue was there being a project template on the article page. By adding the same functionality to the AfDM template, we remove this problem, but still say to random readers or the article: "Hey! do you know anything about me? Improve me NOW or I'll be deleted!". I have edited the template I linked to above to remove all reference of the rescue squadron, so that this become a template that is owned by the community but is attended to primarily by the rescue squadron. Please add this code so we can see how it goes, I'm sure a debate will be started, at worst it can be removed, at best we might actually improve wikipedia a bit :-) - Fosnez 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PAGENAME error
This needs to be "Talk:", not. Milto LOL pia 08:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- lucasbfr talk 12:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Argument change
The edit summary of this revision was a bit terse, so I'm adding a full explanation. The point where occurs is within an if where {{{page|}} and  are compared. The 'then' parameter of this '#if' template contains an '#ifexists'; even if 'page' is present and different than PAGENAME (so the 'then' parameter is not shown), the page of the '#ifexists' is still considered to be linked from the page including this template.

A practical example: the page 'A' transcludes this template with parameter. This means that {{{page|}} is 'B' while  is 'A'. Since they do not coincide, the '#if' does not show the 'then' text. However, this 'then' text still includes the statement '#ifexists| ', which means that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A is still considered linked from page A, while in fact it isn't.

The problem was that my bot saw that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A is the afd discussion page and tries to 'complete' it. This could have been a problem for other bots as well. Tizio 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing it. I hadn't realized that #ifexist: creates an entry in Special:Whatlinkshere.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This template needs a better how to use section
This template needs to be worked on. Having the following text appear on every article that the template has been applied to is an improper use of the template:
 * Steps to list an article for deletion: 1.   2.  ~ (categories)   3.  (add to top of list)   4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing List of fictional diseases ~ on their talk page(s). Dbiel (Talk) 19:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong link
The dot (and only the dot) after "in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" link to Template:AfD. I think that's probably not intended. :-) Can somebody remove the link, please? -- Lea (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Nihiltres { t .l } 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was intended originally as a way for finding lost AfDs (it dates from the last time there was a complete redesign of afd's appearance, except for the amboxing). However, nowadays there's a category that does the same thing. --ais523 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Preload when {&#x7B;{page}&#x7D;} does not equal {&#x7B;PAGENAME&#x7D;}
I plan to make this possible sometime soon... leaving a note so I don't forget. --- RockMFR 15:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That'd be a neat trick, if you can pull it off. I don't know of any way to carry the actual page name through the link to the preloaded nomination page, though.  Do you?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

 * 1) The template should be categorized in Category:Articles for deletion templates, not Category:Deletion templates.
 * 2) Please add   to the bottom of the page to allow for documentation (and proper categorization) of this template. Thanks
 * GregManninLB (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. The category was added to the /doc subpage. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Date
I have added the parameter "logdate" which overrides "date". This is because date is a commonly used parameter which usually follows a number of well-known formats, not including big-endian spelled out dates. In particular, automated processes may want to re-write this parameter. This should not affect anything as far as humans are concerned, but be purley internal to these two templates (this one and afd). Rich Farmbrough, 18:28 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Request to edit this page
Does anyone mind if this template is added to this template, specifically this one. Thanks, Christopher Mat t hew Alexander Marcus Jonathan Wattson 09:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm... what? I'm not getting a very clear picture of exactly what you're asking for here.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles for deletion is already included in the template. --- RockMFR 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldafdfull
It is helpful that the oldafdfull template is included but why isn't it subst: ? TerriersFan (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should be substituted? Happy‑melon 19:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hide instructions
editprotected

There should be an parameter to hide the instructions, for people who know what they're doing (or for after the instructions have been completed). It's distracting/confusing for inexperienced editors who get an AfD slapped on their page and are trying to figure out what to do. —Werson (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ When making an editprotected request, please provide the specific code that you would like to have changed.  Sandstein   18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

editprotected


 * Sorry. Please add




 * and




 * around the horizontal line and help section, like this: User:Werson/test1 (so, replace the whole page with ), so that   will display the template without instructions, but by default (no parameters) it will be no different. —Werson (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ But only because it leaves the default the same.--Aervanath lives in  the Orphanage  13:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Default for hiding
I believe the default should be to hide the instructions. What do you all think?—Markles 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree; we should be making it as easy as possible for editors to complete the steps necessary. Remember that most people adding AfD tags will not be AfD regulars, everyone has a first AfD nomination. We can always wrap the instructions in a CSS span so you can hide them for yourself if you don't want to see them, but they should be visible by default. Happy‑melon 11:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. First time AfD editors will probably begin at Articles for deletion and gets the steps there. Having the steps collapsed will make the template less intrusive. It will also allow for each step to begin on a new line and more detail in each step. Collapsed is also the default state for instructions on similar templates such as Template:Ffd (files for deletion).--Marcus Brute (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna be bold and set this up. Please check how it looks.  If it's really a problem, we can discuss it further.  I'm sorry if I'm being too brash.—Markles 14:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the hiding of the instructions should be reverted, and the quicker the better. I am a regular who nominated articles for AfD by the dozens in the past, and since I do most of my nominations by copying and pasting text from the template to different pages (and getting links to those pages from the template as well), hidden text means I have "unhide" it three consecutive times just to complete the nomination. Sorry, but to me, default should be SHOW.


 * As for AfDs from first-time editors, I think there are many who will think that just putting a template on the page will count for a complete nomination, and will not bother doing the rest unless the template itself VISIBLY tells them how to proceed. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with this change. I am reverting it pending further discussion.  There is clearly not a consensus for this change as yet.--Aervanath talks like a  mover , but not a shaker 07:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

protected edit request
Can whoever broke the "Preloaded debate" link please fix it? -- Gurch (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't broken. What seems to be the problem? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears on Template:AfDM, but it doesn't appear on Template:Afd, nor does it appear on the template when it's actually used -- Gurch (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It should appear when you actually subst AfD on an article. It works fine on my end. Try clearing your cache. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tried putting on an article just now, and it worked fine for me, too.--Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Background color
editprotected This template should have a background color that is different than that of the dated prod template, to avoid confusion that may arise when a contested prod ends up being listed at AfD. I suggest something bluish, like this. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Request disabled since there doesn't appear to be consensus to do this. --- RockMFR 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, consider this to be the start of a discussion on this. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a deletion message; it should be red. The prod message is white, so I don't see the confusion. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently under way at Village pump (proposals) about this. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding instructions - follow-up
Having recently nominated articles for deletion in the French and Spanish Wikipedias (in both cases as a follow-up to discussions here in the English), I have noticed that in both places the entire AFDM template (well, okay, its equivalent) appears totally different when the discussion page exists than when it does not. In French, when the AfD discussion page does not exist, the template displays instructions on how to complete the nomination (and it says rather prominently that the nomination is not yet complete), and when the page does exist, it merely states that there is a discussion in progress and links to it (but instructions can be retrieved).

The French template can be found at fr:Modèle:Suppression. Although the text of the template is in French (which might cause a problem for those who do not understand the language), the Wiki syntax itself is exactly the same as here in the English. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're well aware of that. The markup for doing that is already in this template.  Ironically, it's the very markup that Markles edited that you then objected to.  I take this as a withdrawal of your objection, and have consequently moved the  test up, to include the instructions as well as the "unregistered users" paragraph.  I've kept the pointer to the Guide out of the conditional. Uncle G (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, I wasn't the only one who objected to the change. But let's see how it goes before reverting it again, if there is a consensus to do so. Currently, I am neutral. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... still need to retrieve the exact text of the afd3 template from somewhere that's easy to find. Unless you want to switch the order of steps 2 and 3 in the nomination process? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I always prepare all three edits in three separate tabs, then save them all in one go. Doing things that way, the instructions will remain visible.  Anyway, it's not as if the simple transclusion of the sub-page onto the per-day page is complex, or even hard to work out how to do from scratch (given that it will follow the pattern of every other transclusion already on such a page, given that the page to transclude is the one that one has just edited that one can just copy-and-paste the title of, and given that the per-day page itself includes instructions as an HTML comment right at the very point where one edits it). Uncle G (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to add the following mention to the template then: You might want to open this article in a separate window before proceeding.

2nd nominations - a bug with the new version of the tag
When nominating an article that has been discussed before, the substing of the tag adds a comment that lets one see that this is a 2nd nomination. Problem is, will every nominator see that comment? Or even have a clue about how to complete the nomination in such a situation? Should that even be regarded as a problem? See what I mean. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Idealy, that should not be there. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow down, cowboy, this page isn't really marked for deletion
I think the page needs a heading up top, something like: This page isn't really marked for deletion, don't worry, it's just showing what the template looks like. . Banaticus (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you seen anybody who got panicked and thought it was being deleted?--Aervanath (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalize "Guide to deletion" link
Editprotected At the end of the text parameter, g in the wikilink to "guide to deletion" should be capitalized. The wikilink should read "Guide to deletion" because it is the title of the page, not a generic term. That is why the A in the "Articles for deletion wikilink is capitalized. Thank you. —Finell 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Finell 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Red link that isn't a redlink in new AfD
This is odd. I proposed End-diastolic dimension for deletion earlier today using Twinkle, and it seems to have done everything right, in the right order, in particular creating the discussion page here: Articles for deletion/End-diastolic dimension. But the link to it on the article page is red, as if I'm doing it manually and have yet to create it. If I click on it I get taken to the right place and it changes to dimmed red. All the time the status bar still shows it as a red link, i.e. it has "&action=edit&redlink=1" appended. I'm using Safari on a Mac in case that's important. -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me. The issue was probably related to today's "high database server lag". Purging may force an update more quickly. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, its been edited since so the notice was removed, but the version before looks fine. I've learned a few things from that page I didn't know so will, and it seems like the likely cause, so will check that first in the future. -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Could we have something like this? I've seen this in Japanese Wikipedia (see ja:Template:Sakujo), but not here... みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What to do when an AfD template is removed from the article
This template states, "...this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" (emphasis in original), and gives guidance to Guide to deletion.

Guide to deletion simply repeats the assertion, "You must not modify or remove the AfD."

The question is, where is it documented how to respond when the template is deleted? Unscintillating (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Action needed for handling an article that is moved in the middle of an AfD
As far as I can tell from Otto (Middleton family dog) (originally Otto Middleton), if an AfDed article is moved/renamed in the middle of the AfD, the 'page' parameter of this template is still the old name, but the template points to a (redlinked) listing under the new name. Could the template be either (i) recoded so that it continues to use the 'page' parameter for working out where the AfD should be, regardless of the article's current name (preferred) or (ii) at least provides instructions for correcting the situation (depreciated)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

subst:afd3 instructions disappear too soon
The Afd listing instructions disappear once the deletion discussion page has been completed. The trouble is, that's only step 2, so if the page is refreshed or loaded after that step is done, the rest of the instructions are irretrievably gone.

Would it be possible to keep the instructions visible for 15 minutes from when the template is placed, so that they still show even if I close the tab by accident?

I've encountered this situation more than once, and despite having nominated dozens of articles, find it frustrating. Someone less familiar with the process would probably give up without completing steps 3 or 4. --Pnm (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"this articles entry" is redlinked
This template now seems to show "this articles entry" as a red link, even if the article has an entry. I've seen it on Omniverse theory and at least one other place, which I can't remember now. (and also on Turkey Mountain inscriptions but the entry doesn't exist yet, so maybe that's OK). --OpenFuture (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This still happens. I've noticed it several times, most recently [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ugly_Animal_Preservation_Society&oldid=576661713 here]. The section above, "Red link that isn't a redlink in new AfD", has a report from 2010 about the same problem. &mdash; rybec 04:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It happens if you follow WP:AFDHOWTO exactly as instructed (the actual instructions are transcluded from Template:AfD in 3 steps), and the problem is that at the end of Step I, you're saving a page containing a link to a page that doesn't exist (it won't exist until the end of Step II); such links are always red. There are two different ways that I use to avoid the redlink: one is to follow the instructions exactly, and either after Step II or Step III, WP:PURGE the article where I added the ; the other is not to save the page at the end of Step I but preview instead; and at the end of Step II, having saved the article's deletion discussion page, I then return to the previewed page and save that.
 * Whichever one you choose, the article's deletion discussion page now exists, so you'll get a bluelink - if it's still red, you made a mistake somewhere. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Transclude the list of categories
The AfD process is unwieldy, and having to open the list of AfD categories in a tab every time (should you not have it memorized) is an annoying extra step. Can we please transclude the list at the end of step 2 in a collapsed area, like this?

I've just tested this on this template by transcluding the above, and it breaks the numbered list. Presumably there is a way to include it without doing so. —  Scott  •  talk  16:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Hang on. Why do we have that template code in here at all when there's a link to create a preloaded debate? I propose that we remove the "OR afd2 [etc]" stuff from step 2 entirely, for simplicity's sake. —  Scott  •  talk  22:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two-years-later bump. Lacking any objection, I'm going to do this soon. —  Scott  •  talk  20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Instructions for unregistered users
Please change "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on . If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed."

to:

"Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.

This would bring the instructions on the template into line with the instructions at WP:AFDHOW and reduce confusion. Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Change code
The only difference is that this shows up on mobile. KMF (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 November 2018
Please change where it says: For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

to instead say (if the template is also used outside of namespace 0): For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

Or (without namespace check if it's only used in namespace 0):

For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

This will add a "find sources" array of formatted links to assist editors hoping to improve the article during the discussion. Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

NOINDEXing all nominated articles
JJMC89, a few months ago, you added the NOINDEX template to hide all nominated articles from web search engines. This prevents people from find articles, not AFD discussions. I haven't been able to find any evidence of consensus, or even discussion, for this change, and I oppose it.

I did a spot-check of some recent AFD pages, and about a third of all AFDs end in some form of "Keep" (keep, merge, no consensus, etc.). I think that people who are looking for information on a subject whose article might be deleted should be able to find. (I have very different views about db-attack and db-copyvio pages, but this tag isn't for those pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that this change was a bad idea and should be reverted. Conceivably, the NOINDEXing could be triggered by an optional parameter for the cases where there are BLP concerns or the like.  Sandstein   16:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I might be wrong about it doing anything. Isn't NOINDEX pointless in mainspace anyway, once the page is more than 90 days old?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, in mainspace only works while the page is new (<90 days old). All of the article deletion templates transclude  to facilitate the NPR process. When an article is marked as reviewed and marked for deletion, it would be indexed without . With, the article remains unindexed until it is decided that it won't be deleted. I don't remember the specifics from more than 22 months ago, but adding it to deletion templates was likely discussed at WT:NPR. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we care whether articles at AFD are indexed during the AFD? I mean, I realize there are a few people who think that curating Google's search results is the most important thing in the world, but does it really matter?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons that we don't want unreviewed articles indexed. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is that? I know that several editors are deeply invested in curating Google's search results, but why should we care?  What effect does it really have on Wikipedia?
 * More specifically, why should we care when someone has already reviewed the page and already determined that it's not a candidate for speedy deletion? What real harm happens to Wikipedia if Google decides to index an article about  for the week before it gets deleted for being non-notable?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See this and these for background on noindexing. If the question is simply notability, probably none, but there are other reasons, like spam, that are harmful. What is the benefit of letting an article be indexed for it to turn around and get deleted? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OTOH, more views on an article could lead to more participation in AfDs (which is obviously usually useful). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * there are very good reasons for No-indexing AfD'ed articles during the period of nomination. The best I can point at is the fact that very shortly after no-indexing, wikipedia mirror sites copy articles and put up the copies as if they are legitimate. If we don't no-index them, inappropriate submissions might end up having articles on other wikipedia mirror sites. Morover, just because a new page patroller has marked it as 'reviewed' when they nominated it for deletion via AfD does not mean that we want people to be able to find it on google. In fact the implication is the opposite, that the reviewer believes that the article is not appropriate for wikipedia and should not remain on the site. Allowing google to cache a version and for this to end up out on the internet forever is a big mistake and should be avoided if possible by a no-index tag on the deletion template. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    06:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 with ICPH - add to that, editors who typically participate have either worked on the article in AfC/NPP or in mainspace, or they are members of a project and were alerted to it, or they watchlist AfD. A classic example of a time sink is Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Naman_Ambavi which was moved to mainspace by the author after being declined at AfC, became a speedy delete nom twice with the tags removed twice by presumed IP socks of the author, and finally ends up at AfD where more confusion ensued because of the faulty move to mainspace, and now it's at MfD, the author was warned about COI, and a SPI case is still open. I simply can't justify indexing such cases. Atsme ✍🏻📧 13:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Yep... If AfDed articles are indexed, we are fundamentally allowing some inappropriate material to be indexed. I'd argue that it is better to have some acceptable articles to be no-indexed temporarily during the week or two of AfD than to have some unacceptable articles to be indexed temporarily during the week or two of AfD. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    13:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is my experience that once Google Indexes something it stays in Knowledge Panels even if it is unindexed later applied. This means information that is being discussed for deletion is being attributed to us - perhaps even after the article is deleted. The "cost" of waiting for the AfD is relatively low, the benefit to not exposing searchers to material that's not notable or otherwise doesn't meet our standards is higher. I think the inclusion of the noindex to the tag is a good one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not getting why I'm supposed to care about the quality of Google's search results, or the quality of (unauthorized) Wikipedia mirror sites. If they want non-notable articles, spam articles, etc., then why should we go to the trouble of stopping them?  I'm sure it's very generous of editors to care about Google's quality, but is that really our job?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the general public is able to discern what is and isn't Wikipedia endorsed as well as you - especially because Knowledge panels has Wikipedia's name on it. On a more basic level, I create content on Wikipedia to spread high quality information into the world. Spreading low quality information into the world undermines those efforts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NOINDEX/doc is very confusing! It claims "This template has no effect in the main (article) namespace unless the article is less than 90 days old." Then it later claims "This template should not be used in articles. If an article is bad enough that search engines shouldn't index it, it should be nominated for deletion. __NOINDEX__ is disabled in article space and this template consequently has no effect there." And according to, mainspace articles are automatically noindexed for (configurable/90 days) anyway? 2600:8800:1880:9A3:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I forgot the titles, but there were a few unintentional hoax articles on enwiki because of this issue, including a biography of freedom fighter (or a poet). In very short version: a guy created an intentional unreferenced hoax, which got deleted after few weeks. After few weeks, somebody for some unknown reasons created the article agaian, with similar summary using book citations of made up books. This article got "notability" tag on it later. Even though this article soon got deleted, it was mirrored already. Some non-RS news sites copied it too. One thing lead to another, leading RS to believe that this fictional dude was a real freedom fighter.Then there is issue of our/wikipedia's integrity-pride-status as well. You dont want to be repositary for resumes of scam artists. I have came across many socks/meats who create articles using incorrect cite template, non-RS, and so on. Such article can easily last for a month, and the subject of the aricle can call his victim and say "mate, I am legit! Look me up on internet". There is even more stuff about noindex but i would not spill the beans. In short, noindex is good. — usernamekiran (talk)  09:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Any use for name parameter?
The  parameter was added in 2012, but is there anything that uses it? I just added a class to match Template:Proposed deletion/dated and Template:Db-meta; neither of those use. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed it; please revert if needed. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 00:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 August 2020
Hi! I would like to suggest changing some old text with questionable capitalization:

this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page

to the new text:

this article's deletion discussion page

The easiest way to make the change would be for you to copy and paste the entire contents of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Article_for_deletion/dated/sandbox&oldid=971631065 into the live template.

Thank you for reading this! —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done — <b style="color:green">MRD2014</b> (<b style="color:blue">talk</b>) 20:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

How to test improved deletion discussion link
Hi, ,

I've made a change to the sandbox to generate the correct deletion discussion link. I see that various changes have been made in the past, but without a demo-page param or other link to specify a page other than the page the template page itself, I don't see how this is being tested. Have you just been copy-pasting the code onto the top of live articles and previewing them to see how it acts, or is there a better way?

The change involves transclusion of a new template to generate a correct, leveled nomination name, given an article name. This is part of a template series still in the final phases of development, but here are a couple of examples: Any hints on your testing procedure for Article for deletion/dated appreciated! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rob Levin (last nom=4; expect 5): =
 * Jimmy Wales (last nom=8; expect 9): =
 * World War II (no noms; expect 1st): =


 * @Mathglot I am not sure if you pinged me because the change would break the XFDVOTE tool I created a few months back. The tool would cast a vote on an XFD page through the XFD tag.
 * Can you maybe put your changes on test Wikipedia so I can see what you did? Aasim (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aasim, thanks for your response. Is that how you have been testing your changes to this template, by using the test Wikipedia? I was only dimly aware of it, and honestly it hadn't occurred to me to use that as a test bed, but I guess that should work, although it might be painful, because some of the test cases involve articles that have already been nominated for deletion up to ten times before.  I suppose I could just mock up the pages for previous "failed" nominations, but it would be tedious.
 * I did not know about the XFDVOTE tool before today. I don't quite understand how you would see better what I did on the test Wikipedia than here, but if it would help, I could copy the template to the test Wikipedia. The only thing is, the template has numerous subtemplates, so if I do copy it over, I'd need a tool that is capable of finding all the subpages of a page, and copying them all over in one go, otherwise it would be too much of a pain in the neck to copy them. Do you want some pointers so you can just poke around here and see what I did? It's quite straightforward, and most of the significant subtemplates have brief documentation so I don't think you'll have any trouble understanding it. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Consolidating talk pages
This page should be redirected to Template talk:Article for deletion. Anyone want to make the merge? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)