Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 36

Incomplete nominations
If someone has some spare time, they may fix some of the incomplete AfD nominations listed at User:Paolo Liberatore/IncompleteAfD (I fixed some myself: these listed are the remaining ones.) - Liberatore(T) 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is another one which is not listed where it should be: Articles_for_deletion/Pixel_image_editor 84.63.26.3 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

accidental improper closure
Apparently I closed an AfD improperly. It was a withdrawal by nom, but since I was involved, I wasn't supposed to close it per proper deletion process. It shouldn't be a big deal, but I figured I'd leave a note here in case it required attention. --Kchase02 (T) 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

An unclosed AfD
I found a nearly month old AfD that was never closed, Ott Jud. I thumbed through the log of Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 15 around the timestamp of 1:40, and never found an entry. Perhaps it is not closed because it was never listed properly. Any admins care to remove the tag, re-list, or close it? DVD+ R/W 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't listed, so I've put it now on today's AFD list. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost
The excellent and extremely well-sourced article on Gregory Lauder-Frost has been nominated by User:HOTR. He has demonstrated over the past 6 months that he is opposed to Lauder-Frost, and all those individuals and groups associated with him, at least two of which he has also proposed for deletion. I have not yet checked but I would not be surprised if it was he who nominated this article for deletion before. His lever on this occasion are the ravings of a new User:Edchilvers, who is also opposed to right-wingers.

The question is, why must right-wingers be any less represented on Wikipedia than left-wingers? They have all played their part. If one pages through the thousands of articles on Wikipedia most of them appear to be little sourced and many have no sources at all. Yet here is an attack upon a quite well sourced article deliberately demanding citations to every tiny little statement, may of which are common knowledge.

My last comment is that every article on Wikipedia must contain an element of original resarch unless it has been lifted wholesale from another book.

This nomination is jaundiced and an entirely unfair nomination by someone who has openly displayed in the past that he is anything but neutral. Sussexman 07:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That said, I have decided that I will concur in the removal of the article altogether. I think it will be best for everyone concerned. Sussexman 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Because of what has happened to this article I have nominated it again for deletion. Sussexman 07:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... so now, after all this, we are deleting an article from wikipedia simply because some editors don't like the topic? If that was wiki policy, then most articles wouldn't even exist. I oppose deletion, and suggest that instead the article be editied a little to make it more palatable for all. Easter rising 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon closer inspection, and as a Canadian with no predisposition on this issue, I dont find this article to be biased at all. It is VERY well cited for a wikipedia article, and does seem to portray GLF in a fair manner. The only thing I would suggest be changed is perhaps the addition of a criticisms section. The section could even be added by his detractors so long as it is done in NPOV. Easter rising 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuart Millson
I oppose this unfair nomination. Sussexman 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * stating it here is the wrong place though. You should registar your opposition at the articles deletion page here Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson Ydam 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Keith Smith
I oppose this unfair nomination. Sussexman 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As above you'll have to say so here Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Keith_Smith Ydam 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Instructions incorrect for 2nd nomination
Text reads;(If you used template subst:afdx  instead of  subst:afd1, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).

Should read ... use "PageName (second nomination)" ... otherwise the page points off to nowhere? Alex 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your question. Are you saying that we should spell out the "second" in the discussion pagename?  That makes no difference.  The whole purpose is to point to a redlink so you can create a new page.  (If you see that it's not pointing to a redlink, you need to iterate to the next number - "PageName (3rd nomination)".  Rossami (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have a question relating to second, third, etc. nominations of an article. If an article's name has changed between the first and second nomination (e.g. X survived an AfD and was later renamed to Y), should the second nomination be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (i.e. first AfD of this article under this title) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (second nomination) (i.e. second AfD of this article)? Шизомби 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is no conflict, just use the new name. The only reason to add the "2nd nomination" to the header is so that we can preserve the full history of both discussions.  Note:  You should always provide a link to the prior deletion discussion(s) in your new nomination. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for examples
Hi. Someone in a conversation has asked me for examples of cases where vote-stacking has occurred and managed to disrupt the proper functioning of AfD. I know I've seen it happen repeatedly, but there might be some AfD regulars watching this page who could point out better examples than I, just rummaging around in my own fairly limited AfD contributions. Most generally, what I'm asking for is evidence addressing the question: Is "vote stacking" (i.e. rallying groups of people to "vote" at an article's AfD) a bad thing? If you think it's a good thing, and have evidence of that, I'd be interested to see it, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Listings
Is there a listing of historical AFDs? I need to reference a couple of successful AFDs and can't find them (can't remember the exact page titles). - SoM 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See Archived delete debates for AFDs. MFDs, redirects, categories and image deletion discussions are all archived slightly differently.  See Deletion process for the overview and links.  Rossami (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Renate Thyssen-Henne
A question for the admins (I'm a new admin). How do we coordinate our actions in closing AfDs? The listed article is one of several that are on the June 5th log but not closed yet. Who's going to close this one?

Please don't refer me to the policies. I've read the policies. The policies do not explain the mechanics of coordinating this. - Richardcavell 06:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The page you need is Wikipedia:Deletion process. To answer your immediate question of who will close that particular discussion, the first volunteer who feels sufficiently experienced and impartial enough to do a good job.  Discussions continue for a minimum of 5 days but can sit far longer.  We've had backlogs of several weeks and more at times.  The current backlog of 3 days is not bad at all.  Rossami (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting associated Talk pages
Two articles that were recently deleted (as I recall, I requested it), Decronym and Incronym still have their talk pages there, Talk:Decronym and Talk:Incronym. While these could be good to keep because they consist of the same comment questioning whether these are actually real terms (they are not, which is why they were deleted), at the same time they keep up a two pages that should never have existed and it would be cleaner if they were both deleted... (Note this may have been a prod rather than an AfD) —Centrx→talk 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They can both be speedily deleted per WP:CSD G8, in fact I've just done it now Ydam 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark Mayall
Cannot understand why the link has sent me here. I am opposing the deletion of Dr Mark Mayall's article page. He was Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club when it was the leading non-party UK Conservative Pressure Group. He is also a leading paediatrician and child psychiatrist in England as can easily be gleaned from the Medical Register.81.131.24.254 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC).


 * Absolutely. 81.129.155.181 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"double jeopardies" and AfDs
This seems like a dumb question, but does anyone know the proper procedure for articles that have gone through multiple AfDs with conflicting results? In other words, suppose that an arbitrary article has gone through three AfDs. If the first two AfDs result in "keep" but the third one results in "delete", do we keep or delete the article? --Ixfd64 21:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that all people who voted in previous AfDs are contacted to see if they would change their votes. Secondly I would, if an admin, consider extending the voting time (as we currently do with contentious AfDs). It would also, from an admin's POV, be worth considering whether the article had changed significantly, or whether external events had changed to cuase a change in voting (e.g. notability is temporal with certain people?), and also to look at the reasoning for voting in the third AfD. I don't think we can simply have a hard and fast rule, but that extra care should be taken when closing such AfDs. --Wisd e n17 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Because some articles (like Gay Nigger Association of America) often go through many AfDs, things like this are bound to happen. --Ixfd64 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as the previous deletion discussions are properly disclosed during the new discussion, it is incumbent on the discussion participants to review those discussions and to weigh the facts and arguments made then during the new discussion. If, after doing so and after weighing the new facts and arguments, the community consensus is to delete, the article should be deleted.  If there is evidence that the discussion participants failed to review the prior discussion(s), that would be reasonable grounds for a Deletion review request.  On the other hand, if there is a bad-faith nomination that simply ignores the previous discussions, those are generally shouted down pretty quickly.  Rossami (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It also depends on the nominations in the prior AFDs. If it was nominated as a copy-vio of site X, but kept because X is a wikipedia fork/mirror and no other issues were discussed, then that discussion is irrelevant to a nomination on any other basis, including being a copy-vio of site Y which is not a wikipedia fork/mirror.
 * It also depends on how much the article has changed, how much time, and why the prior AFDs resulted in keep. If the priors were "no consensus = keep", then any current consensus outweighs them.  If a prior was "keep" but also had a bunch of and "clean-up/cite sources" comments, and it hasn't happened after enough time (at least a month) has passed, then a failure to clean-up/cite sources can be treated as a additional evidence that the article should now be deleted.  And if the article is radically different, then the prior AFD discussion may be completely irrelevant.  GRBerry 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other replies. However, I think that some editors place too much weight on the article being kept in a previous discussion and state that the article should be kept on that basis alone. While the arguments of the old AfDs should be examined, I think a new AfD should otherwise be a clean slate. Nominations are flawed because nominators don't make a good nomination, new evidence is not found until the nomination is almost over, sockpuppets are involved or someone gets a bunch of people to vote for his or her side. However, unless there is one or more serious problems with a previous nomination (that a reasonable person on either side would accept as true) or if there is new information or something has changed so that there is a good chance a new nomination would lead to a different conclusion, an article should not be renominated for at least a couple of months. -- Kjkolb 05:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kjkolb's first couple of sentences. However, not the rest. If the previous AFDs were no consensus or weak keeps, particularly if people were looking for cleanup and citations, or delete unless cleaned up was used, then a lack of activity on the article is a perfectly good reason for deletion.
 * At the end of the day, there are no binding decisions on the Wikipedia and if a better version of the article can be recreated, it absolutely should be. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to nominate an article, it turns out it has been nominated before, when I can nominate it?
If your answer to this question was wait 6 months, or it can be classed as a valid speedy keep then you'd agree with the guidelines.

If you think that an admin closing off your nomination as a speedy keep because it was kept 4 months ago is generally a bad idea, then I suggest you voice your opinion at Speedy keep, where it says that if an article was kept in the 6 months prior, it's untouchable.

Since I've been at Wikipedia (roughly 9 months), the general rule was, give it at least a month. Maybe 6 weeks. But according to guidelines, we can now close nominations as speedy keeps if it was kept 6 months prior. This is absolutely ridiculous, anyone who's familiar with AFD and has nominated many articles knows that 6 months is not the period of time quoted between nominations. I do not want to see Speedy Keep - kept 100 days ago cropping up on AFD discussions, I do not want their Speedy Keeps which have gone against any kind of common sense on Wikipedia being backed up by a guideline. I tried to remove it, but the 4 editors or so who had decided to add this, have "consensus".

Whereas the 4-6 weeks between nominations is backed up by years of AFD behaviour, the 6 month clause is backed by a couple of editors. It should not be there, please take some common sense over to Speedy keep. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Afd problem
I have to say something:

As recently as 3 years ago, I knew nothing about and had no predictions that I was going to learn about Wikipedia. Now, I know what Wikipedia appears to be. It appears to be a project whose object is to make an encyclopedia that everyone can agree is perfectly useful, which appears to be impossible. There are many articles per day that get put on Afd, and a good encyclopedia would have none. I feel that I should soon go the way 12.144.5.2 went at the dawn of 2006, perhaps a few days from now. Anyone know what the most important part of What Wikipedia is not is?? I definitely say Wikipedia is not, and will never be, perfect. People's points of view just cannot converge to make Wikipedia more NPOV. Georgia guy 02:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Err.. what? --W.marsh 03:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedian's points of view cannot converge. Wikipedia can never be balanced perfectly. Wikipedia has taught me in so many different ways a way to show me how often people's points of view differ, and there is no way they can converge. (This is true especially when it comes to lists.) Georgia guy 03:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, maybe I'm up past my bed time but none of this is making any sense. If people will compromise and understand the spirit of policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V, we can balance articles out one at a time, if people devote enough time to it. I'm not even sure if this is what you're talking about, but whatever. --W.marsh 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the things about WikiPedia, that other encyclopedia's don't have, is that anyone can edit it. Articles can be created by anyone that has an account, and anyone (in the majority of cases) can create an account. WikiPedia will unlikely to ever be perfect, but there are many people that contribute, either on New Pages patrol, Recent changes patrol, wikifying, cleanup, etc, that might see an article that looks like it has something wrong with it. In some cases these would be speedy deleted, but other cases this is not possible purely because the article doesn't come under one of the critereon that would allow it to be "speedied". In these cases it is usually put on AfD with the reasoning for it being deleted. There is, however, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team which is working on a release of WikiPedia's best articles. AfD has its uses, and sometimes articles that are listed are actually brought up to a better standard fixing the reasons it was nominated during the process. Neutrality can be achieved in articles where people have differing points of views by collaborative editing, and I have seen this done extensively on articles that are contraversial. By collaboratively balancing both opposing points of views in an article, neutrality can exist. TheJC TalkContributions 03:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Georgia guy here. However, the inability to reach perfection does not necessarily means that it is a negative phenomenon. No encyclopedia is perfect. But, I wish to state that the constant improvement of articles towards perfection should be a strong motivational factor. There is only one direction Wikipedia is to aim to. That is the constant improvement of ALL articles in this online encyclopedia. That is a very achievable goal to aim for. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  03:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Daily headers
I notice that whoever has been creating the daily log pages for AfD (such as Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 25) has not necessarily been inserting the standard headers (with the link to the previous day's AfD log and the centralized discussion template). What is the best way to make sure this is done each day? --Metropolitan90 05:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Missed AfDs
Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 16 still has discussions that aren't closed. I replied this to an admin two days ago, but nothing came out of it. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've re-added this to Articles for deletion/Old, so it should only be a matter of time. In the future, that's the best course of action if there are still a lot of open AfDs and a page has been mistakingly archived. --W.marsh 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe most of the admins are busy? This could be another reason why Wikiepdia needs more admins. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that day was closed when Mathbot wasn't functioning (due to the hosting-servers being down for a period of time). But yeah, I'd really like to see more admins willing to close AfDs down to about 20-30 so I can come in and close the more contentious ones. I have the continuous time to do 20-30 AfDs, not 40-70 like I always see these things get stuck at. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin votes
Is it permitted for admins that vote in a particular AFD to be the hand that deletes that same article? I can't seem to find the guideline for this. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned under Deletion guidelines for administrators that admins should not delete articles that they nominate for deletion, although I agree that it's best if the closing admin has had no input into the discussion at all, or indeed any contact with the article, whether the result is keep or delete. — sjorford++ 08:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While it is best to remain impartial, your choice of words (such as "any contact") in my opinion represents an extreme interpretation and, I believe, an overreaction. The majority of admins who regularly close discussions are very professional and fact-based in their analyses.  They have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to put their emotions and biases aside when carrying out the community consensus.  The good admins will recuse themselves from a discussion where they expressed strong views are capable of closing most decisions fairly.


 * The problem is our continuing scarcity of admins who are qualified, experienced and interested in closing deletion discussions. If we insist on an absolute rule that discussions may only be closed by someone with no contact with the discussion, one of two things will tend to happen more.  Either informed admins will withhold their facts from the discussion (in order to be able to close the discussion later) or we will increase the odds that the discussion will be closed by someone who is uninterested and/or ignorant of the issues in the deletion debate.  Now on the latter point, that doesn't make a difference for many decisions.  The facts are all presented in the discussion and the admin has a simple task to determine the consensus.  But some decisions do require prior knowledge.  I know this because I've watched admins recuse themselves for lack of knowledge (or interest).  If all the informed admins are excluded for participation and the uninformed admins decline to close the debate, we may well leave no one qualified or interested in volunteering to close the discussion.  That has been the case in some of our very public controversies in which at times it seemed that everyone had an opinion.  The userbox debates might be a recent example.


 * Okay, I know my scenario sounds a little contrived. And Aaron Brenneman had a good counter-argument over on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review (where the same question recently came up).  But we are an all-volunteer organization and we should be cautious about throwing too many barriers in the way of volunteering.  I personally haven't seen enough evidence of abuse to justify a hard ban.  All that said, it's still a good idea to recuse yourself if you can't be impartial and you should never close a discussion which you opened.


 * By the way, Freshgavin, please remember that we are not voting. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, of course AfD isn't a vote, but we keep on calling those little opinions everybody writes votes for lack of a better word. Maybe we should seek a new word? Deco 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should seek a new word, instead of vote. The usage of the term vote is inaccurate to say the least, but what is the most appropriate and accurate term to use? -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Opine" works well for participating in the discussions. "Conclude" works well for closing comments.  GRBerry 03:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I consistently use "to recommend" and "recommendation", as for example in "I don't understand your recommendation. Why do you recommend deleting it instead of merging?". --Lambiam Talk 06:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've used comments, but when someone (in my opinion, patronisingly) points out to me that AfD is not a vote, I often call it a "!vote" (pronounced "not-vote"). I also wrote a short paragraph on this phenomenon. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why linking to the "don't vote on everything" essay proves that AfD isn't a vote. I hate voting as much as the next loyal Wikipedian, but I don't deny that it exists in uncontrollable heaps on Wikipedia. Anyways, thanks for clearing up the admin question. I'll just go and get my leather whip now. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  11:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Time Limits
I realize that when creating an AfD that the entry is created as soon as one presses the red link. Is there some sort of time limit to write a full explanation for requesting a peer review of an article? Maybe there is a way to create the file first with the template, giving the editor the opportunity to provide information making it easier for others to review any particular article. Certainly nobody investigates the same, but it does seem awkward not to point out what research was performed to justify a review. It might actually save people a few steps if the nominator provides the effort in the first place; i.e. links to Google and Alexa, and etc. Why the rush? The rush is only a problem because the article is tagged. Suppose a file was made with a link then after it was saved, it could be moved to the correct spot, followed by the article being tagged, and then the listing. Wouldn't that solve both problems (time limits and exposed listings)? Ste4k 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean the time between adding to a page and typing out the rationale in the subpage that's created? You can always pre-type the rationale in notepad or whatever... I've done that a time or two. You could even create it in your userspace, then move it to the AfD subpage when ready. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your question. --W.marsh 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the scenario, I'm not even sure what time-limits we are talking about. When I nominate an article, I usually take 30-45 min to research and write out my nomination.  That's never created a problem that I know of.  Rossami (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed modification to AfD process.
Please provide feedback on a proposed modification of the AfD process which can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia jurors. Folajimi 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Messed up nomination -- could somebody fix this for me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Rosenthal

VivianDarkbloom 18:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you enter before the items on that talk page and after them. Then sign it with four tildes ~ having annotated it "Please see here" . Please feel free to copy and paste this text. -- Alias Flood 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Broken template in instructions
The instructions say to use:

~

This is broken in two ways; first, the four tilde signature comes after the heading and makes it not processed, and second, no one else puts the "Editors recommended actions" subsection in their listings. Please fix. Ideogram 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get this: you are supposed to cut&paste the whole text, including the four tildes (which are then processed). The section "Editors recommended actions" is new to me; no such section should exists in the afd subpage. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Afd problem
The article named Stephen Sant Fournier was deleted by means of an AFD and readded under Count Fournier in a different manner. Is this a violation ? As noted, nobility does not imply notability. Maltesedog 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Count Fournier is about the royal position and the various people who have held it, not just Stephan Sant Fournier. As such, it may be more notable; you may mention the deletion of Stephan Sant Fournier as additional justification in your nomination, however. I understand how this article could be seen as an end run around the previous deletion, but to disallow such "sorta duplicates" could be a big problem in the long run. Deco 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Missed deletion
I've just discovered that the following article has still not been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_2#Toolstation (decision was made 8th February) The deletion template was removed from the page, so maybe that is the reason? If this is not the right place to report this, can someone please point me in the right direction? Thanks -Ladybirdintheuk 15:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by User:Thebainer who closed the AfD. It was then recreated about a month later by User:Golddustmedia, but it has been rewritten a bit and doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material, to me at least. I suggest using WP:PROD if you think the current incarnation should be deleted too. --W.marsh 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Question
Hi All. Just received a warning from User: Dr Zak because, I think, of a complaint he received from User: Em-jay-es. Looks like I stepped into a hornets nest from a long running debate going on between these two users and User: False Prophet. Thought I would air what I did here and try to understand more the reason for the rebuke I received.

I was browsing around and came accross articles on the lost books of the bible. However, four (that I saw) of the lost books listed--Lost Book of Enoch, Manner of the Kingdom, Lost Book of Jasher, and Lost Book of the Covenant--all had been nominated for deletion. But, none of these article listed any reason as to why they had been received the nomination on their talk pages. I found it strange that only certain of the lost books were nominated and (wrongly) assumed that they had received the nomination through vandelism. So, I removed the AfD tag and added a comment to each of their talk pages that I had removed them because no reason was given as to why they were nomoniated for deletion in the first place.

I then received a response on my talk page from Dr Zak about not removing AfD tags as that itself is an act of vandalism. He explained that they had been nominated because they were POV Forks; however, nothing in the articles talk page indicated this was the reason. Had that been indicated, I would have never removed the tags.

I guess a little bit of knowledge is a bad thing and I now understand I shouldn't have removed the tags. But, I'd like to know opinions on my thinking that some reason should be provided in the talk page of an article as to why the AfD tag was added.

Am I off base on this?--P Todd 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, in similar circumstances, I'd have added the AFD to the AFD page but added the signed comment "Completing nomination started by User:Whoever it was. No reason for deletion given. no vote." Grutness...wha?  01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The rationale for AfDing an article is provided by the nominator in the AfD subpage. One may, as a matter of courtesy, explain the reason for tagging the article on its talk page, but that is not required. Removing AfD tags is frowned upon, and is seen as vandalism. If you believe the article shouldnt be AfDed, say so in the AfD discussion. --Ezeu 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to Grutness and Ezeu. I think I have the understanding know on all this AfD stuff. I now see that their are extensive AfD subpages full of discussion about nominations and that such a discussion on a talk page would be redundant. Thank you for putting up with a newbie!--P Todd 02:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

List of genetic and rare diseases
Can someone please fix the AfD. It's on the July 5 AfD list, but it's not linked on the article page. Sandy 14:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The AfD looks fine right now. The above article has a link to the AfD that was added before your post above (see this). --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not closed
I don't know why but a AfD I opened on June 29th is still open. Here it's not even on the list anymore. Also this one as well. 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong date on old discussions
Sunday 2 July is currently written as Monday 3 July. Is it OK to correct this date, or will it confuse the bot? Oldelpaso 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been corrected. The error was not made by the bot. --Ezeu 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability (books)
The linked page is a proposed guideline on establishing notability standards for books, currently seeking consensus on content/adoption. Please visit the page and comment on its talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

stats on success of AfD listings
I am just wondering if any stats are, or have been, collected on the success/failure rates of AfD nominations?--Gay Cdn 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There aren't any current ones that I'm aware of. There's always WP:AFD100 if you haven't seen that. --W.marsh 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AfDs by anonymous users -- what should AfC reviewers do?
Hello. I've been doing some work on the AfC queue for the last few days, and it looks to me like the AfD and/or AfC process needs to be revised to discuss how anonymous users should navigate the process.

At this point, the AfD process for at least some anonymous users works like this:


 * The anonymous user looks in the AfD instructions, and specifically the "Before nominating an AfD" section. The instructions say that anonymous users will be unable to complete the process on their own, and should consider creating a registered user account before initiating the AfD process. But the instructions don't flat-out say "you can't initate an AfD as an anonymous user," so the user decides to go ahead anyway.  (Or, of course, the anonymous user doesn't read the "Before nominating an AfD" section at all, and just starts the process.)
 * The anonymous user performs step 1 of the process, and puts the tag on the article.
 * The anonymous user tries to complete step 2, and can't, because anonymous users can't create authors. The user is referred to the AfC process.
 * The anonymous user submits an AfC request to have the article's AfD page created.

So, the request shows up in the AfC queue. Sometimes, the request has a cogent, well-thought-out explanation for why the article should be deleted. In this case, the AfC reviewer simply creates the AfD page, adds the anonymous user's explanation to the page, and closes the AfC request. No problem.

But, of course, sometimes the request may have a blatantly inappropriate reason for deletion, or no reason at all. In this case, the AfC reviewer is left in a bit of a quandary.
 * The reviewer can say "This request is inappropriate," and simply decline the AfC request without taking further action. But at this point, the AfD notice is already on the page. And the AfD notice on the page does not state the user's reason for nominating the article; at this point, that reason is only in the AfC request. So we're left with a half-completed, reasonless AfD on the article page; that's likely to take longer to sort out than if the reviewer had created the AfD page and listed the nominator's reason there.
 * The reviewer can say "This request is inappropriate", decline the AfC request, and remove the AfD tag from the article page. But in this case the AfC reviewer, a non-admin, is essentially closing and erasing an AfD, something that would normally be blatantly inappropriate.
 * The reviewer can go ahead and create the AfD page anyway, and list the nominator's reasons, without commenting on the merits of the nomination. In this case, the AfC reviewer may come under criticism for allowing an anonymous user to waste everyone's time.
 * The reviewer can create the AfD page, and add a comment "I think this nomination really really sucks, but I'm creating the page anyway to allow the process to proceed." But since early comments on AfDs often seem to carry more significant weight in the discussion than later comments, this could very easily be misconstrued or misused as a way for an AfC reviewer to unfairly influence the AfD debate by taking advantage of the opportunity to get "first licks" in on the merits of the nomination.

Because of this, I think that the AfD process needs to be clarified to more thoroughly explain exactly how anonymous AfDs should work. I can think of a number of plausible possibilities:


 * Flatly forbid anonymous users from starting AfDs. The AfD instructions would be rewritten to emphasize this. (But there's still the question of what an AfC reviewer should do if an anonymous user ignores this ban and submits an AfC request anyway. Would it be acceptable for the reviewer to remove the AfD tag from the page?)
 * Create a separate process for anonymous users to start AfDs. The anonymous user would be instructed not to tag the article, and instead submit the request to some queue monitored by admins, who would have the power either to complete the AfD process or to reject the user's request.
 * Allow anonymous AfDs, and require AfC reviewers to accept them. The AfC instructions would direct reviewers to accept all AfD requests, even if they seem blatantly wrong, in order to allow the process to proceed. (But this still leaves the question: Should the AfC reviewer stay neutral in creating the page, or express his or her own comments on the nomination?)
 * Have administrators handle all AfD requests in the AfC queue. If an AfD request comes in through the AfC queue, the non-admin reviewers would not accept or reject them, but would instead flag them for admin-level handling. The admin could then either fulfill or reject the request.

I think all of these ideas have merits, and don't have a particular preference, but I think we need to choose and document some policy. Kickaha Ota 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Update: Revised my explanations of the options. Kickaha Ota 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The absolute last thing we need is more policy creep, especially regarding an edge-case such as this.  To me, the proper action is obvious.  The first option you listed (decline the delete request in AfC and take no further action) is, to me, the preferred choice.   There is a bot that looks for AfD orphans and deals with them appropriately.   Orphans are created all the time for various reasons and, frankly, I think all orphans should be treated the same.   To reduce this to bullet points:
 * Requests for article deletion or modification on AfC are inappropriate and should always be declined or ignored.
 * What happens in AfD should have no bearing on what happens on AfC -- and vice-versa.
 * By extension, what an anon editor does in an article should have absolutely no bearing on the fulfillment of AfC submissions.
 * Although some might disagree, I feel that using AfC for non-creation activities opens up a nasty loophole that can be exploited for "sockpuppeting-by-proxy". Its best that we don't even consider using AfC for anything other than article/template/shortcut creation.
 * -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But if we're going to say "Requests for article deletion or modification on AfC are inappropriate and should always be declined or ignored", then that's simply another way of saying "Flatly forbid anonymous users from starting AfDs". We shouldn't have instructions that just say to "consider" creating an account before starting an AfD, and then tell anonymous users after they try to go through the process, "Well, when we said 'consider using a registered account', what we really meant was 'you have to use a registered account'." That's just mousetrapping the user and creating a little extra work for everyone. Kickaha Ota 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to change the AfD pages to be more anon-friendly -- or even change AfD policy to accomodate anon users, that's great. In fact, I'll support nearly anything in Wikipedia that makes it more anon-friendly.   HOWEVER, any adjustments made to AfD to accomodate anon users should not, in any way, intersect with AfC.  They are very different things, with fundementally different goals and direction.   In other words, anon users being unable to nominate articles for deletion is an AfD issue, not an AfC issue.  Therefore, to prevent chaos and confusion, the issue should remain solely on AfD where it belongs.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very reasonable viewpoint. Personally, I think that where practical, policies shouldn't just cover the things that are supposed to happen; they should also cover the things that aren't supposed to happen, but regularly happen anyway. That seems particularly relevant to AfCs, since a casual stroll through an average day's AfC queue shows that the majority of requests break the rules in one way or another. So the AfC guidelines should give the reviewer guidance on the sorts of mistakes that users can be expected to make.


 * One thing that anonymous users can be expected to do is to use the AfC process to try to carry out AfDs. Heck, under the current AfD instructions, this isn't even a mistake--the instructions say that anonymous users should consider creating an account, and that they won't be able to complete step 2 if they don't, but they don't say "don't do it". I don't know enough about AfD history to know whether this is an oversight or a reflection of lack of consensus on whether anonymous AfDs should be allowed.


 * Even if the AfD policy and instructions were changed to simply say "anons can't do it", I would predict that anonymous users would still tag articles for AfD, and then try to use the AfC process to complete their AfD, on a fairly regular basis. Some of them would do this deliberately, to try to flout the requirements; most of them would do it inadvertently, as a result of not completely reading the AfD and AfC instructions. Either way, the request is in the AfC queue, and AfC reviewers should have some policies or guidelines telling them what to do about it. Even if the policy is just "Refuse anything that's not an ordinary article creation request, a template request, or a redirect request", that's still a policy. Kickaha Ota 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps -- if the problem was more widespread. However, I've been working on AfC for a rather long time and I think I can count the number of deletion requests on one hand.  The percentage is actually vanishingly small.   It's true that you got one the other day, but it had been QUITE a long time since AfC had had one before that.   If this starts to become a major problem, I can see that we might do something about it, but right now its so rare that I really think that AfD requests on AfC should be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than making sweeping changes or adding to the policy/procedure/rule creep.  However, a note, maybe even a bold note, on the WP:AFD page that one must be logged into a registered account to nominate an article is not uncalled for -- for precisely the reasons you validly point out. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after hearing your thoughts, I'd agree with "Just forbid anonymous AfDs" as probably being the best solution, and that the "consider creating an account" AfD instruction language should be replaced with a more emphatic "You must be registered and logged in". Then I don't think the AfC policies will need changing. Kickaha Ota 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the user in question provides a well-tought out and valid reason based on policy and can't see why we should decline such requests. Sure, bots can fix orphaned nominations, but they'd have to guess at the anon's reason if they can't create a new AFD discussion page to post it themselves. I would be happy to accept such requests. Creating a new process only makes things more complicated for newbies. It doesn't happen so often that AFC gets swamped, I think AFC can deal with it for now. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So currently anon users can put pages up for speedy deletion, can tag articles with prod, but they can't list pages at AfD. Strange. What if anon users were allowed to create pages in the wikipedia namespace? --Zoz (t) 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD
I'm usually more involved in another language WP so I'm always amazed, how comparatively civil AfD debates are conducted here. Particularly, it appears as if hardly anyone comments on other people's delete or keep arguments directly (basically creating a little sub-discussion about a lot of things not related to the question at hand). Is there some guideline people follow automatically or are there others running around moderating the discussions? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. sebmol 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is rare to get refactoring of comments in the AfD discussions. We frown on that when found.  It is more common to get commentary on other arguments.  That usually occurs when the original argument is either from someone who doesn't understand the basic policies of Wikipedia (often as an indent with an educational tone) or from someone who got taken in by a hoax or did a sloppy job of researching (usually presented as a new opinion).  There are also a number of people that opine once and then don't follow the discussion.  Having a significant fraction of one time participants reduces the motivation to start a sub-discussion, as there is a lack of reason to believe the person you are responding to will be back.  How you can develop such a culture is not my area of expertise.  GRBerry 13:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. We have a certain set of users that basically spends 80 to 90 percent of their activities in AfD debates. Not just commenting on each entry but also often commenting on other people's comments. Now, I don't know if you speak any German, but this should illustrate the situation a bit even without knowledge of the language: . As you can see, there are several indentations, each represent a comment by one person to another person. (for clarity's sake behalten = keep, löschen = delete). The tone is also rather uncivil in this debate.
 * Basically, my question is: do you have guidelines that rule what these discussions are supposed to look like or how people are supposed to behave in them? Is there a rule written somewhere that discourages commenting on other user's AfD comments? I really appreciate your insights.
 * sebmol 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost all the way at the bottom of the project page (for this talk page), we have two sections on AFD etiquette. They used to be above the procedure instructions.  That is the only specific AFD behaviour guidance that I know of.  GRBerry 16:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Guide to deletion.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: "Jury duty" rule of thumb
This comment (and proposal of sorts) about AFD is taken from Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) where my sentiment originated, and which can also be used as an illustration. (Note that it was closed as a "Keep", so this is no sore loser's rant.)

In a calm, relaxed tone:


 * I'd like to say I find it rather appalling that people who voted "Delete" never came back to the debate, to confront the evidence about the article they had sentenced to death. And this, despite their being informed twice on their talk page about the detailled list of notability evidence gathered, and despite being wiki-active since.
 * I understand that an AFD isn't a vote per se, and how its reviewing process can strengthen an article -- but this works better, and doesn't give such a sorry spectacle, when an actual debate takes place.
 * Yet it's currently possible to just mass-slap AFD's and Delete's without any further involvement, personal responsibility, accountability, or moral sense of duty.
 * The results can then give the appearance of pathological witch-hunting or kangaroo court, rather than debate. As if a bunch of jurors would just say "Burn the witch" early in a trial, then leave the court before defense is pleaded. "It'll git a fair AFD, and then y'all can delete it."
 * As a rule of thumb, I think that someone who initiates or participates at some point in an AFD should have some sort of a "jury duty" to come back at least once on the 4th or 5th day, especially when he voted "Delete". He could then review evidences, update his vote or explain why he maintains it -- or at the very least counter-sign his vote with a second ~, so as to act of his presence before the sentence he's in part responsible of.
 * As a rule of thumb, someone should thus not engage in more AFD debates than he can, or intend to, actually handle.

Also, I have been told that people who vote then don't come back to see new evidence "considerably weaken their voice in the debate, and could even be discounted for this reason". But the AFD documentation doesn't mention or suggest this to admins.

I'd suggest, as two separate but linked points:


 * For voters, to have a strong suggestion of a "jury duty" notion (as outlined above). This could be some sort of "Before voting, be sure to know your AFD jury duty" link in each AFD page's header.


 * For admins, to have a section of AFD documentation about "Suggestions and guidelines for the admin closing an AFD", that would at least suggest such notions (and others). Depending in the case, the admin wouldn't necessarily have to follow them, but how is he supposed to even know and decide about them in the first place, if they're not documented? Such section could also become a repository of accumulated admin knowledge, "tips & tricks" about how to handle the AFD "counting" and closure, possibly with links to a few exemplary cases of jurisprudence.

-- 62.147.112.7 13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Luckily, AfD is not a vote. A good admin will look at evidence of notability and discard prior nn votes if these clearly did not take later evidence into account. I had the same problem with an article - most people seem reluctant to change their mind even when new evidence is presented. Stephen B Streater 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But half my point (about the admin side) is:
 * How is a new admin supposed to know or learn about this, and become "a good admin" in the first place? As it seems to me, a short section of documentation about "how to close an AFD" would be useful, at least as a mere set of non-binding suggestions and ideas.
 * Also, it would provide more transparency and information to the editors facing an AFD and reading about the topic, to know beforehand how it's supposed to be conducted *and* closed.
 * And on the other side (about editors' votes):
 * Should it be considered the acceptable norm that people can just mass-vote delete's on Day 1 of AFD's and never come back, without any hint that it's not how they're supposed to act, or about responsibility and moral duty?
 * Also, even if the admin do discard the "nn votes" made prior to evidence being provided, the overall impression left on contributors by the "debate", and by Wikipedia, isn't a very good one. The end result of the AFD isn't the only thing that counts.
 * -- 62.147.38.70 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We run about 100 AFD discussions per day. People just can't return to more than a significant fraction of them.  Our guidance does encourage people to come back and review later evidence, but there is no obligation to do so.  This is another reason why AFD is not a vote - the admins closing the discussions have to be given the reign to evaluate not only the arguments but the time sequence they were made in.  (This is why reordering the list/discussion is enough of a procedural violation that the deletion review squad generally sends such items right back to AFD again.)  All Wikipedia participation is voluntary, and AFD participation is generally thankless, sometimes people want to write articles instead, even those of us that are regulars here.  I'd guess that I put about 2 hours a day into Prod/AFD, yet only find time to comment on less than 5% of what is here.  I'd rather move on to another article than go back and comment again.  I return, read, and go away far more often than I return and comment.  GRBerry 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is covered by AfD is not a vote. Perhaps more importantly, if you don't watchlist a nomination, you really aren't passionate enough about it to continually participate, weigh evidence, and add argument. People who discuss more will get more attention and more weight in the decision - it all works out as you would hope. Taken to an extreme, such ideas would lead to watching every article on which we fix a typo, in case someone reverts it or decides the spelling deserves discussion on the talk page. Deco 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Guide to deletion where this is briefly discussed (paragraph 8 of the Discussion sub-section). That section has been larger in the past. It was reduced in an effort to cut down on the instruction creep and general wordiness of the page. Perhaps some stronger discussion should be added back. Rossami (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The best way to deal with this kind of issue when major new evidence comes to light is to leave a message on the talk pages of everyone who contributed beforehand. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And anyway, you can't force people to come back to a discussion. Even if you did implement something like this, you need to bear in mind that some people comment on 50+ AFDs a day, and having this rule across all those discussions would result in no more work ever getting done. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You may argue about whether it is right or wrong, but a clear factor in this case may well have been that the notes left on people's talk pages were from an anonymous IP, and that many arguments in the AFD itself, asserting notability, were from an anonymous IP. I know that many feel that IP's should be taken just as seriously as a registered user, but the simple fact is that they aren't. Let's face it, especially in AFDs, where sock/meatpuppetry is so prevalent, a lot of people will see IP's and stop reading. It may be wrong, but it happens. Fan-1967 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the argument? This is a fine idea. You vote early on an AfD, you should check it before close time unless it's clearly an obvious slam-dunk. I don't see any way to enforce it except to say that it's good Wiki'ing to do so. I would also say definitely go back if asked to do so. That might encourage more talk-page spamming maybe, but probably not to any great extent. Herostratus 03:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have seen some obvious "slam-dunks" that turned into Keeps after a rewrite. Realistically, people are not going to go back and check on every article, because the vast majority never get improved, so it's unproductive most of the time. If someone has made significant improvements, they really need to notify previous voters and commentators. Fan-1967 16:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone has made significant improvements, the closer should be taking this into account when closing the AfD; arguments for deletion that are not (or are no longer) valid should be, and if the closer is sensible, usually are, discounted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much time closing admins have available to devote to each AFD they close. Again, in the vast majority of cases no significant changes have been made to the article. How much time do they want to put into looking at articles and checking diffs to find the small number that have significant changes? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that an editor who makes significant changes should (at minimum) add a note to the AFD to say that it should be looked at again. Fan-1967 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We devote as much time as is necessary. Of course someone who rewrites an article should leave a note on the AfD subpage; however, if none of the original "nn d" fellows deigns to review the article after the changes, there's no reason why the closer should not ignore their views, as is proper.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If the end votes count, then we'd probably just wind up with something like ebay, where you only look at the ones that are about to close. If the article is changed significantly, the admin would probably relist it, instead of closing.Sanbeg 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote. Any admin who counts votes when closing an AfD is doing it wrong, and doing the article a disservice.  And the only reason an admin would do that is because people insist on hanging around here and DRV and saying, "why didn't he count votes?" or "that approach to vote-counting won't be fully democratic", or ... well, that's about it, really.  The admin &mdash; this admin &mdash; does not relist unless there is a good reason to relist.  A strong argument towards keeping a reworked article is not a good reason to relist; not when it can simply be closed as a keep, with no fuss (except from anyone silly enough to count votes).  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What he said. --Tony Sidaway 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Add new entries below this line" comment in AfD logs
I propose to replace the "Add new entries below this line" hidden comment in the daily AfD logs with "Add new entries to the bottom of this page", and then as the last line of the log, add the hidden comment "Add new entries right above this line". It would help AfD closers because the nominations would be sorted in chronological order - which is mostly the convention now, except that some people see the hidden comment and do blindly as instructed. Any objections? And where's the template for the logs located? Kimchi.sg 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This has caused a lot of confusion. The last few days I've seen new AFDs added randomly at the top (generally by newer editors) and the bottom (by those accustomed to doing so in the past). For those looking at the bottom for new nominations, new ones added at the top get missed. I'd endorse the suggestion to make it as unambiguous as possible. Fan-1967 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many
Things like this remind me that there are just too many entries in AfD these days. I think people are not properly educated on what other steps they can take, especially prod. I have contacted editors about this, saying, "You know those 10 articles you nominated today? All of them could have used this prod template." and they almost always respond by saying they didn't even know that existed.

I think we should add some prominent text at the top of AfD that informs people that they don't necessarily need to list things there if they are non-controversial. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there a notice on the page people just tend to ignore it. Or they think that doesn't apply to their article. I use prod quite a bit and only use AfD if I think the prod will be contested. Whispering 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's likely that there are too many there; but considering how confusing and cumbersome the delete process is, I think that's to be expected.

My understanding of prod is that it's for uncontested deletions, which wouldn't seem to apply to vanity, since the subject/author may contest. If I understand correctly, if an article is nominated for prod, and anyone contests it, it doesn't get deleted. The exception would be if the nominator really follows the article's progress, which seems unlikely given the amount of random vanity & adverts floating around.

I think it's a bad thing if it takes more effort to delete cruft than it does to create it. But leaving a lot of barely noteable articles because it would be too much effort to remove them doesn't seem like the right thing to do. The vast number of pages & policies you have to read to start deleting is already a barrier. It would really be nice to streamline the process. Sanbeg 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The solution is obvious. More volunteers.  Dionyseus 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We should almost always try PROD first, even with vanity and so on. There's really no harm in it, as long as the PROD is done properly. It actually "works" most of the time. Either watchlist articles you PROD or use an edit summary like "prod" so you can easilly go through your contribs every few days, list at AfD if need be. --W.marsh 13:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How about adding a note at the very top, like a dab note, saying: For uncontroversial deletions, see Proposed deletion ? —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I double checked the policy, neither WP:VAIN nor WP:DVAIN mention prod. Also, the example that started this thread was probably my most contoversial, the others mostly went pretty quietly. I'll probably try to speedy some of the obvious cases. I guess I can try prod in some in between cases, the revisit them later. Sanbeg 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am working on a concise re-write of WP:AFD. Once finished, I will post in my userspace and open a discussion and try to obtain a consensus to replace the current page.  One of the principle ideas I have is to post a "Quick Reference" at or near the top that just tics off items like:
 * For nonsense articles, blank articles, and obvious spam, please refer to the Speedy Deletion process at WP:SPEEDY.
 * For normal article deletions that are non-controversial and unlikely to be contested, please refer to the Proposed Deletion process at WP:PROD.
 * For potentially contested deletions, or deletions warranting discussion, proceed to the instructions on this page for listing an Article for Deletion.
 * Thanks, -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment One problem with the text proposed above: Though some may wish it otherwise, spam is not a speedy criterion. Fan-1967 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, thanks for the comment. I just wrote that off the top of my head, so I'm sure there will be other adjustments as well.  What I really meant was non-notable people and groups. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed AfD notice
Okay, took a stab at it. Could interested parties please review User:Aguerriero/AfD. I stress again, the purpose of this is to place a notice at the top of WP:AFD that heads off deletion requests that are best handled elsewhere. There are too many listings here that don't belong here, and too few people to address them. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest mentioning that redirects and merges do not require AFD, either. We seem to be getting a lot more lately with these results... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice idea in theory; I'm not sure it will help any, though. Also, your notice that "vanity articles" should be speedy deleted will definitely do more harm than good &mdash; vanity articles are kept on AfD all the time, and are certainly not speediable merely because someone shouted "vanity".  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about making it even simpler - REQUIRE that prod be tried first before listing an article at AFD. Let the lack of prodding be a cause for a speedy keep.  I know it's instruction creep, but it would keep a lot of the non-controversial deletions off of AFD.  BigDT 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is a sound idea in principle, but it's a little outside what I am trying to do here. I am simply trying to educate editors about their options. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. If we're going to have more rules and regulations (particularly rules and regulations that will be misquoted then used to beat up people who were doing the Right Thing to begin with, as is often the case with the deletion process these days), then we need a Bloody Good Reason&trade; for taking them on.  I don't think this is a Bloody Good Reason&trade;.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And no, since it wouldn't work. You'd save extra work in some cases, but create extra work in other cases, since there are instances when you KNOW that a prod would be contested, but would have to jump through the hoop just to satisfy a silly requirement. A suggestion to do it in non-controversial cases is the way it should be kept. And to the original post, adding visibility to prod probably won't hurt. - Bobet 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to make an itty bitty nudge back to the original question - do you folks have any opinion on the proposed notice? No new policies, just a notice educating and informing editors. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "For nonsense articles and vanity pages..." as per above, CSD doesn't have a vanity criteria and nonsense in CSD terms has a very specific definition, I think this will confuse more than help. --pgk( talk ) 06:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CSD A7 reads "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages." I realize the criteria are not thoroughly defined here, but that is not the point.  The point is to get them to consider it, and then go see the CSD page and make a decision. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. We have enough people playing Chinese Whispers with policy, especially deletion policy; I don't want to see more people rudely insisting that such-and-such good article needs to be deleted because of something their mate Geoff's kid sister's dogwalker's drug dealer's girlfriend's hairdresser thinks he might have read on some template somewhere while drunk.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mark, I am trying to get a handle on what your objection is, exactly. I'm not sure what you mean to infer with the Chinese Whispers remark but no misinformation is being passed here, and no policy is being interpreted or introduced.  Quite simply, there is a crapload of nominations in AfD every day.  There are more than what anyone has time to discuss.  Even if that's all I did with my wiki-time, I'd never get through the list every day, giving each its due attention.  So what we have is sparse commentary, and many re-listings. Many of these noms can and should be elsewhere - they are either speedy candidates, or they can be prodded.  I am interested in making Wikipedia as lean and mean as possible, so I can get on with actual article editing. This notice reminds people that other options are available. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Chinese whispers. It's a very popular game on Wikipedia, where a simplification of policy is misread by someone, who then passes it on in garbled form to someone else, who makes their own modifications, and so on and so forth, until some newbie somewhere is beaten up for their lunch money because policy says he was supposed to be standing on one leg when creating his third article if a CVU member happens to read it on a Monday, or else that article must be speedied.  If we're going to have a template which re-states policy, it must be remotely correct.  The word "vanity" is thrown around far too often, usually incorrectly; we do not want more incorrect speedy nominations.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (<--- Yonder)

(--->) I edited the first bullet per my discussion with Mark. I am going to post the notice now since it seems like concerns have been addressed. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Current version is way, WAY too big. After the title it takes up about half the visible page (on my 1024x768 res). Shouting at people "HEY, RETARD! YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE COME HERE! GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!" (which is what the gigantic ! picture says) is the worst kind of instruction creep. I removed the ginormous picture, three extraneous lines of text and reduced the padding. Feel free to revert and discuss. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with your edits, except for removing the graphic. It could be resized, but I think it's necessary.  I write user documentation for a living, and that is essentially what AFD is.  In my experience, readers need a visual cue to direct their attention to important information.  I don't think a simple table is going to do the job. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point - there was enough space beside the sentences that the image could be added without stretching the table. I've re-added the image - though now I think that that particular image - a red exclamation mark - is a bit harsh. How about using a blue 'i' sign or something like that? (I've got a particular one in my head but can't remember where I've seen it now...) --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about using the red triangle with the ! mark in it that we use in the current template? Whispering 13:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That probably produces the same effect. I changed it to the circle-I - how does everyone like it now? --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice very soothing now we just need some Enya playing and we'll be all set. Anyway it looks good to me. Whispering 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Enya? No, no, a thousand times no! Jane Olivor, please. As for the other "i", eBay has one; it's not nearly as good as this one, which looks great! Thank you, Aguerriero; may we incorporate it into more templates? I also found an "i" [here], but like yours better.&mdash; Chidom  talk   03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just got it out of the commons, can't take any credit. :) -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Template's looking good. Well done guys. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

afd2 template
Hey guys, to finish something I first noticed some seven months ago, I made this change to Template:Afd2. Basically, this means you can call afd2 without having to use the "pg" and "text" attributes, but the legacy usage is still there if we have bots or scripts. You can create an AfD using Bad article name in addition to using

If you guys agree that this is a good change, I'd also like to update the AfD steps section and the template usage notes so we don't use "pg=" and "text=". --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, my code hack doesn't work because it leaves residual code behind (take a look at the first section here). I'm going to self-revert my edits because I don't know enough about Wikicode to do this. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a modified version at User:Sanbeg/Afd2. On mine, calling reason is equivalent to -~.

This also uses a | to support the old calling convention, so it leaves the same remnants of partial substitution. I wasn't sure if that's a problem in afd2. So if it can't be merged, I'm tempted to just call that from my user space, or rename it to template space to make the call simpler.

My concern is that having to put the subpage & signature in manually is too much extra work for something that is fairly constant, so it's better to templatize these to streamline the deletion. If partial substitution in the deletion pages isn't a problem, we can support multiple calling conventions. Otherwise, it may be useful to have multiple templates, so we can have a simpler one for the simple case when there's no / in the article name, which I think is the only case where mine won't work. -Sanbeg 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Llama Love Society
Could the Llama Love Society just be changed to a redirect to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius? It was the first article I created, so I wasn't very sure on how to write one. --Llama man 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just suggest it on the AfD page. Whispering 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada Day, 2017
I added Canada Day, 2017 to todays afd list, for some reason the template did not format properly and while the article is in the list it is not in the table of contents. TIA --Paul E. Ester 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, when nominating, you should subst the template afd2, it formats the page correctly. In your case the header wasn't formatted properly. - Bobet 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A reminder
Okay, guys. You find an article whose subject, you believe, is not notable enough for a separate article, so you merge it into a parent topic. Good stuff so far! Then you wander over to AfD and say, "It's okay, I've merged now, it's safe to delete." Um, bzzzt. It is not safe to delete. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Joe Bloggs is so odiously non-notable that you want to remove all trace of his article's individual existence ... you can't. It is a violation of the GFDL. Sure, there's complicated technomancy that can achieve history merges and the like, to retain authorship information, but we do not do that sort of thing unless it's necessary. Please do not argue for deletion if you want the content kept merged into another article, and do not insist that administrators perform the tricky job of merging page histories just so you can giggle at another article name deleted. You aren't making sense! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't you just turn the article in to a redirect to the article it's been merged in to. I thought that was the usual procedure Ydam 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it in one, Ydam. Redirects also happen to be about 4.999 days faster than AfD. ;) -- nae'blis 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Road articles - delete?
I have come across a ton of stubs and short articles relating to various roads and highways ... most of them are not notable in any way. Given WP:NOT, I would like to propose that these get reviewed and deleted unless they are truely notable in some way. Blueboar 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would discuss first in WikiProject Highways. They have likely discussed inclusion criteria for roads and could likely be of assistance. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Request admin guidance
I've nominated army.ca for deletion due to non-notability but fear I may not have followed the rules correctly. The article reads fine and I could probably improve on it, but it seems to me the site itself is non-notable and may well be a wasted effort since the article appears to be suitable for deletion. Would an admin be able to look at the article and see if the notability criteria are met? Based on what has been posted on the Talk page, it doesn't appear that it has been.Michael Dorosh 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Non-admins closing AFDs amendment
Because of the backlog generated by AFDs, I'd like to propose an addition to Deletion process: Non-admins can close non-controversial AFDs as "delete" as well as "keep" and its equivalents. Then, they would tag the article with db-afd and blank it (so that an admin could just rely on the auto-summary content was: ' '). Since closing AFDs requires experience, and closing a "delete" is not quite the same as "keep", this could provide opportunities for admin hopefuls. Also, it lessens the work of admins. -- King of ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠  18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to keep this as it is. The admin has to check / do the deletion anyway, so I don't think this will save work. If we need more admins, why not nominate some good editors. Stephen B Streater 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I'd love to close more AfD's, I think letting other non admins like myself close them might bring more problems than it needs (such as early closes and closing those they participate in, not following instructions, and the possibility of revert wars on closing, not to mention newer users getting confused as to what constitutes non-controversial). This would bring more pain to AfD, and require more time of admins to figure out just what happened, let alone deleting the case. Of course its just my opinion. SynergeticMaggot 09:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with SynergeticMaggot; he makes excellent points as to non-administrators deciding what is controversial or not, and actually determining the "keep" or "delete" outcome. I wonder if it would help to leave the decision to keep or delete in the administrator's hands but have an "assistant administrator" do the "clerk werk" once the decision has been made. One way this might work is that once the decision is made to keep or delete the article, the administrator would edit the Talk page and add an appropriate special tag indicating the decision. An assistant adminstrator who is watching the page would review the edit, see that a decision had been reached, and proceed with the remaining tasks of deleting or keeping the page, archiving the discussion, etc. I may be over-simplifying here, as I'm ignorant as to the actual process, but I think this might help; dividing tasks usually makes them lighter for everyone involved.&mdash; Chidom   talk   21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've closed 9 AfD's as SpK and one as delete because an admin deleted an article at the same time it was nominated. I'm not sure if there is a need for assistant admins, as we already have a few or so regular editors who are willing (such as myself) to do such tasks as are open to non admins and we are supposed to post to the talk page the outcome. When I close an AfD, I dont decide its outcome, but close based on the conensus (or if nom withdraws). So far, I only close those that there are not delete decisions and I wont close an AfD if there is one person who says delete, as that would call for a decision. Any experienced user/editor who can grasp the general guidelines of such a task may do it, thus alleviating the need for assistant admins. SynergeticMaggot 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about closing AfDs that are clearly speedy material? Could I simply speedy-tag the article, and once its deleted, close the AfD myself without being an admin?  Dark Sh</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000066">ik</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">i</FONT>  14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can tag them for speedies and people do this all the time. And yes, you can close an afd on any article that's been speedied, since there's nothing left to discuss, at least at afd. Admins are supposed to close the afds on any articles they speedy but this doesn't always happen. - Bobet 15:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Relisting
I've noticed AfD's being relisted, and I cant find any pages on this process. I'm interested in helping, but I'm not sure if non admins are able to relist, and what the procedure is. Anyone got a link? SynergeticMaggot 09:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One common case where you should relist is when an article is rewritten but has no comments or few, contrary comments after the rewriting. —Centrx→talk &bull; 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean extending an existing AfD past its 5-day period, instead of closing it, then the steps are:
 * Insert  at the bottom.
 * Go to the daily log it was originally placed in, edit the whole log, and cut out.
 * Go to today's log, and paste the subpage in there.
 * Note that this shouldn't usually be done just because editors are too split to call it one way or another, or a lot of AfDs would never be closed - if there's enough participation those AfDs should be closed as 'no consensus' unless there's enough strength of argument behind one side to close as 'delete' or 'keep'. Most relists are in cases where there isn't enough participation. In the case Centrx mentioned I would often just close as 'no consensus' and make it clear that a swift renomination should not be prejudiced. Whether non-admins can do this isn't set in stone, but I would say they shouldn't, on the basis that non-admins should only close uncontroversial AfDs, and if it's uncontroversial it won't need relisting.
 * If you mean renominating an article for deletion after it has already had an AfD, use  instead of , replacing 'second' with 'third' or whatever is appropriate. Then complete the process as normal - the afdx template automatically creates a new AfD subpage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and I just meant relisting. I've noticed that there are a few here and there that just have two decisions, one to keep and one to delete, and sometimes the nom doesnt have a vote either. I think these are generally the ones tobe relisted. SynergeticMaggot 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)