User:Dusti/AFD Coaching

'''This is an AFD Coaching page for users Dusti and Keeper. These users will be working together to allow Dusti to gain knowledge and experience in closing AFD's.'''

4/29/08

 * 1) Articles for deletion/African Diamond Mines
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Republican vs. Democrat
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination)
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Princess Rongan


 * I'm going to answer all four of these together instead of in separate sections, because overall, I feel that you've made valid and valuable statements in each discussion. I'd like you to watchlist these four.  Also, I'd like you to not contribute any more to the discussions, just let them grow and eventually close.  Once all 4 are closed, I'd like you to report back to me how each of them was closed, whether the closer agreed with you or went "the other way", and whether the closer closed it how you would have closed it (in other words, did he/she determine consensus correctly and without bias?).  I won't be closing any of these four myself. So, here they are:
 * Articles for deletion/African Diamond Mines
 * Result:Closed early per WP:SNOW
 * Agree or disagree with result? What would you do differently?
 * Agree with close. At the time of my !vote, I didn't realize the issue with the {{inuse tag.


 * Articles for deletion/Republican vs. Democrat
 * Result:Redirect
 * Agree or disagree with result? What would you do differently?
 * Agree, as that was my !vote


 * Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination)
 * Result:Delete
 * Agree or disagree with result? What would you do differently?
 * Disagree, I feel that the article should have been found as a "No Consensus" due to the large amount of discussio taking place. I would have let the article remain, then if there was someone still wishing to take it bak to AFD again, I would have participated in the conversation with my opinion.
 * A large amount of discussion is not necessarily a "no consensus", it just means that it probably complicated or controversial. That in itself is also not "no consensus".  The result of the debate was a clear delete, and was explained well by the closer.


 * Articles for deletion/Princess Rongan
 * Result:No Consensus to delete, default to Keep
 * Agree or disagree with result? What would you do differently?
 * I am neutral on this. Pastordavid raised a good point on accepting royalty as notability, but I still don't see the reason to have the article. Lke above with Hema Sinha, I am glad the article was found under no consensus and will look to see it again at AFD sometime, that is if someone raises an issue with it. But as we like to say, yesterday's newspaper, yesterday's news.
 * I agree with the closer on this one as well. Royalty, in general, has been argued successfully as being inheritable notability, and I've seen articles started on newborns that are born into royal families that have survived deletion.  Us Americans don't get it perhaps, I try to stay away from "royal" articles as I frankly don't get the fascination with royalty and my bias would probably show...

6/2/2008

 * 1) Articles for deletion/Warstock closed as keep  on 6/2/2008
 * Hilarious! How do you nominate something by mistake?  "Accidently added templates to three pages guys, my bad".  Good chuckle... Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the million dollar question of the day!!  D u s t i complain/compliment 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Akim Aliu  Closed as a Keep on 6/10/2008
 * 2) Articles for deletion/The World's Got Talent Closed as Delete on 6/7/2008

only three for today, as you told me not to participate in too many discussions in one day.   D u s t i complain/compliment 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Keep them watchlisted, let me know when they close.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 out of 3! Excellent. I was impressed with your statements at those 2 AfDs.  We'll see how the third one is closed momentarily I presume.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was wondering, since this is going better, is there a way we can trim some of the dates to move this along a little faster? I'm finding myself getting bored of just commenting. I want to do both, assuming you agree. However, we did have a deal, so I'm willing to go with how you feel about the situation.  D u s t i complain/compliment 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only hesitant because you were gone for a month+. Closing AfDs is rather unpleasant, whether you're an admin, or doing a NAC.  I'm willing to up the timelines (note I left the "dates" blank below?  Let's see how the last one closes, then we'll talk... Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok to me.  D u s t i complain/compliment 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 for 3 this round. Better progress than before. What are your thoughts?  D u s t i complain/compliment 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

6/11/08

 * Articles for deletion/Rayo de luna (2008)  result  Deleted
 * Articles for deletion/Dusty Smiles and Heartbreak Cures  result  Keep
 * Articles for deletion/The Pocket Studios  result  Deleted
 * Articles for deletion/HMAT Berrima  result: Nomination Withdrawn, agreed to redirect 


 * Looks good Dusti. Keep your eye on them.  The first one is an easy one, looks to be deleted probably early.  The second one is interesting, differing opinions are coming up.  The third one is also interesting.  Please tell me here what is wrong with the person's !vote that said "Speedy Delete, G4".  Why is that not an acceptable reasoning in this case?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked that one, because I was questioning it myself. If you look closely at G4, its says This does not apply to content that has been undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). The reason that G4 does NOT apply here is because the primary reasoning for the speedy was the questioning of sources. The recreation of the article, according to the AFD "Added a primarysources template but was removed several times by the article's single editor without suitable sources given". Good answer?  D u s t i complain/compliment 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Basically, if something is speedied, it can possibly be speedied again, but not as a G4.  It might be speediable (if it's the same stuff over again), but G4 is only for stuff that gets recreated after an AFD takes place resulting in Delete.  Good work, glad you were thinking that already.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay me!!!! :)  D u s t i complain/compliment 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if the first and third will go according to my opinion, the second may not. I'm standing behind my position though.  D u s t i complain/compliment 19:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added an AFD that I nominated myself.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That came and went fast! The others look good.  I'll keep my eye on the one that isn't closed yet.  Cheers,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we beginning with phase two?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Soon soon. :-) Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty :-). BTW, wasn't calling you a ding dong, I was ringing your doorbell.....that reminds me...I'm hungry :)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The final AFD has been closed. I am, lemme see here, not sure. I know 2/3, but how is the last one counted?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 14:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Round 1
Performing Non-admin closures in subsets, 4 per session, twice per week (8 total per week)
 * As a participator in the last two sessions, you were 2 out of 3, which makes 5 out of 6 total. Nice work.  You can now go close 4 snows.  But promise me that you'll keep the following in mind:  The AFD must be 4-5 days old.  It must be unanimous "keep" (besides the nominator). Even better if the nom withdraws. If you see a "younger than 4 day old" snow-keep, close it only if the nominator withdraws and there are no other "deletes".  Don't forget to remove the afd tag from the article (s), and don't forget to update the article(s) talkpage(s) with the "oldafdfull" tag.  The templates are here.  Have fun, be careful.  Only do 4.  And before you start, read this paragraph two more times.  We'll do four today (wednesday), and then four more on Friday, assuming nobody comes raging onto your talkpage from the first four :-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I Relisted Articles for deletion/Meditation therapy
 * 2) I Relisted Articles for deletion/Brian Boru Irish Pipe Band
 * 3) I Closed Articles for deletion/CAW Local 200


 * I just want to comment here, I only closed one because the others (that could have been closed- not the relists above) I didn't feel comfortable in closing. There were several that had speedy keeps, however, after the last round of speedies that I closed, I wasn't comfortable with closing them until I had your "OK". If you want, I can track them down and bring them here for you. Woot Woot!!  D u s t i SPEAK!! 14:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All three of those are excellent decisions. You'll notice that the two that you relisted got immediate attention/new !votes?  That's also excellent, as they will now be able to be closed down the road.  If you'd like, you can list the others that you were "thinking" of closing as keep, I'll take a look at 'em and see if your hunch was right.  Woot.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 I'll just stop here at 5 and see how I did in your eyes   D u s t i SPEAK!! 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Thought this could have been closed as a redirect Articles for deletion/Koyomi Hare Nanaka
 * I only want you to close "keeps", not redirects, but you're right about the probable outcome
 * 1) This gave me a hunch to close because of the nom's statement, and AFD explicitly states "Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion.  If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.   Articles for deletion/Jesse Dunford Wood
 * A bit bizarre, but mixed opinions, best left to an admin Closed as a Keep on 6/19/08
 * 1) This one I think can be closed because of the arguments made throughout the AFD Articles for deletion/Bamboo species Closed as a keep
 * Could potentially be closed by non-admin
 * 1) This one, well, need I say more? Articles for deletion/Bobby Jack Brand Closed as a keep
 * Could pontentially be closed by non-admin
 * 1) This AFD has one "weak delete" but no reasoning given. Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson (2nd nomination) Closed as a Keep
 * not unanimous (there's a very weak "weak delete" in there). Probably wouldn't get contested if it were closed though
 * Overall, I think you made the right move leaving these five alone. I'm glad you're being careful.  I really only want you to close the "INSANELY OBVIOUS" ones for the first few weeks.  As you get more comfortable (and as I get more comfortable too:-), we can start looking at things that are more borderline in nature.  4 more tomorrow! (Don't close any of the above, let them all go to someone else)  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I feel better though, about what you said about the outcome of the five above. :)....makes me feel a little more confident, but still uncomfortable about closing those similar in nature to these. :-) 4 more tomorrow. I have plans for the future, maybe to be considered with the next session, however, I'll wait until then to unveil the thought. You may be thinking the same thing.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 20:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like your hunches were right! Nice work.  We'll do 4 more on Monday.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Round 2
Closes:
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Stephanie Biddle (nomination withdrawn)
 * good close, although there were a couple of stale "deletes" in there, they were very weak
 * 1) Have not closed, awating your opinion, nom has withdrawn, however there are still two !delete votes Articles for deletion/Dale Sweetland
 * Yeah that one's a mess, leave it alone. Good non-move
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge Obvious Keep
 * good close, although in the future I would avoid making any "personal commentary" about the nominator like "bad faith AFD?". Even if it's true, (and in this case probably is true), it is generally not helpful to add that in bold on the top of the page in the result section.  Just report the result
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Shigenobu Nakamura Snow Keep
 * good close

Overall excellent closes again. I'm offline on weekends, shall we do four more on Monday? I'm sure you can find something else to do before then. Any progress with Travellingcari on article building? Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Round 3
Closes:
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Ace Online (nomination withdrawn)
 * looks good
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Harry Cleaver Keep. Note: I closed this RFA with a hunch in my stomach that it would be closed as a keep. I'm willing to relist it if you feel I should do so. The AFD seemed like it was just done on a whim and notability was established in the AFD discussion.
 * good
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Mohd Mardani Keep
 * good
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Rivaldo Costa Amaral Filho
 * good

Overall, I realize that you are using the AFD script to close these. Before you hit save from now on, go into the edit box and "unbold" your statement so that the only bolded word is keep. Otherwise, all look very good. 4 more Wednesday or Thursday. Cheers, Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not using the AFD script, I'm having to do it manually, but I'll do as you suggested.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 20:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Also, I removed the AFD tag from Harry Cleaver and added the oaf tag, looks like you forgot one.  No biggie.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Round 4

 * 1) Articles for deletion/Saang mein Closed as a withdraw
 * My favorite line in this one is "if you aim to document all noodle dishes, you are going to need better sources than the noodle's own package". Good close, although it appears the nominator got bullied about more than I usually like to see - very aggressive group of "keep" people
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Doc Gynéco‎ I only did two here, thought maybe two more tomorrow....Only two due to the nature of them. I thought I would get a little bolder?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 01:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good close, no issues here. Do you know about the cleanup-afd template?  You add it in place of the afd template on the article if there is a need for clean up that has been identified as the result of the debate.  This article would be a good candidate for that extra step.
 * I went to place it on the article, but it looks like a bully admin beat me to it!! Grrr lol, so..what now? *clears throat again :-D*  D u s t i SPEAK!! 14:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to close some more wheneves. Don't worry too much about finding more "borderline" ones, I'd rather you closed a dozen snows than one borderline.  It helps get the snows out and keeps the backlog down, and it avoids having someone flame you on your talkpage.  Snows are snows because they aren't controversial, and pushing the envelope is all well and good, but I don't feel like defending you on your talk :-).  I'm removing the "number limit", close 'em as you find 'em.  Don't get burned out with it, but if you can find a dozen snows a day, close em!  Be careful with "NOM withdrawn", remember than just because the nom withdrew does not mean it automatically gets closed.  You have to see who else has agreed with the nom (other delete !votes).  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Round 5

 * 1) Articles for deletion/Forever Living Products Keep
 * 2) Articles for deletion/History of Rush‎
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Basic Black (disambiguation)
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Basic black (disambiguation)‎
 * 5) Articles for deletion/Kathleen Carley‎
 * 6) Articles for deletion/Darker image calendar‎
 * 7) Articles for deletion/Saltängen‎
 * 8) Articles for deletion/Himmelstalund‎
 * 9) Articles for deletion/Lindö‎
 * 10) Articles for deletion/Klockaretorpet‎
 * Ten for ten! All look very good, none should come back to bite you.  Excellent work, keep on keepin' on!

Month Three: July 19th thru August 19th
Same as month two, assuming it goes well. Otherwise back to Month one activities.
 * Recently, I'm finding it highly unlikely that I'll need to "supervise" your closes after the next few weeks, if not days, so we'll probably never use this section. That's good news!  No more babysitting!  :-)  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was going to go one step further. I was going to see if I could possibly start suggesting delete closes to you to judge my strength there? Obviously not close the AFD's but bring them here?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 18:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds fine. I'm awful busy though (both on-wiki and IRL), so my responses might not be quick enough (meaning they may be closed before I ever get to them).  But still a worthwhile exercise.  Go for it!  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The New Style of AFD Coaching
Delete "Closes"


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Indian Air Force in 2015
 * Closed it
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Pubsumer
 * closed it
 * 1) Articles for deletion/F.L.R. (Free Lunch Ratio)
 * Redlink? Closed it
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Paul Karpowich
 * Closed it as split