Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 37

I think if someone nominates something for deletion
and that article ends up being kept, the nominator should incur some consequence. something like no more nominations for a week or no more nominating a certain type of article or seomthing. I dunno. I guess prosecuters can still prosecute after they lose cases. but the defendant gets something- a settlement, his name cleared, lawyers fees at least. some afD nom's are annoying. k zz* 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to one of the irritations of Wikipedia. Most of us know the frustration of starting an article that we think is interesting or important only to have some (what we feel to be) officious f__l decide that it isn’t encyclopedic and is worthy of an AfD nomination. We can all agree that the Wiki standards for what should be kept are seriously variegated; my current pet peeve is that almost any first-world company warrants retention, but I’ve seen a number of second-world companies dismissed out of hand. I really question some of our AfD standards.


 * But there are certainly some articles that deserve to be culled. And I’m unwilling to be one of those folks who sorts through all the new articles to find the occasional crap. So I’m not enthusiastic about discouraging those folks who will do so.


 * When I had an article nominated as an AfD, I made myself a few guidelines:
 * When I add a new article, I think carefully about how to present it to give in the maximum encyclopedic weight. Just a word or two can make a difference.
 * I craft the new article in my sandbox to make sure it looks pretty good and reads smoothly before I move it onto its new page.
 * I try to make it several paragraphs long (the more substance the better).
 * I find a category for it (lack of categories tends to trigger AfD sweeps).
 * And if I know someone with a similar interest, I recruit them to help add material as soon as it is posted. Articles that have multiple interested folk are less likely to be targeted as AfD.


 * Watch the AfD page. Look for articles on the AfD page that you think need support and are getting an unbalanced hearing. Support their retention if you think they should be retained.


 * And if someone repeat nominates a page after it has survived one AfD nomination, remember that repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept. Contact an administrator for an opinion whether this warrants a speedy keep decision.


 * Probably not what you wanted to hear, and I’m sure there are others who will support your view (a year ago I would have) but at Wikipedia we are nothing if not tied up in an incredible pile of consensus based Wiki-policy based on years of fighting through exactly the same arguments again & again & again & again & again & again & again... Not as immediately satisfying as we'd like. Sort of like democracy, not a very good form of government, but better than anything else out there.


 * I’ll post to your talk page as well. Hit me at [User talk:Williamborg|home]] if you want to talk more. Williamborg (Bill) 17:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see two problems with this.

One is that AFD's are supposed to be controversial; non-controversial should be speedy or prod. The idea is that if you put something up, and it doesn't get deleted, you're supposed to accept it and move on. Punishing people would break this.

The other is that articles may be nominated mostly because the content is terrible, and doesn't assert notability, but someone responds to the AFD by completely rewriting the article. Personally, I wouldn't consider that a failure; if I nominate something because the content it that bad, and the bad content is removed, it doesn't much matter whether the article is deleted.

I could see some kind of AFD block for obvious abuse, but not a good faith block for good faith edits. I also think that if we put too many roadblocks in the deletion process, Wikipedia will naturally evolve into another myspace; a few spurious nominations seem like a small price to pay to prevent that. -Sanbeg 14:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there should necessarily be a penalty for a delete nomination that winds up in a keep. However, if the nominator is acting apparently in bad faith, the nominator can and should be penalized. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to delete
All the articles from the following template. They are completely unworkable, will never be anywhere near complete, unreferenced, and could be used for POV-pushing.

The previous unsigned comment was placed by (08:10, 31 July 2006 222.153.28.69)


 * These don't look encyclopeid, they should be bundled into an Afd. -Sanbeg 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The one on the US and Canada is just a list - not an encyclopedia article. It should be jettisoned unless the author actually wants to write an article, using secondary sources, on the subject of socialists in North America.Michael Dorosh 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use the standard AfD procedures. See Articles_for_deletion. - Mailer Diablo 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way (other than manually) to search AFD for articles
on a specific topic, in a specific category, or that have been worked on by a specific editor? ONUnicorn 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Too liberal closure and deletion during AfD
I've noticed yesterday than in more and more cases the rules stated for AfD are not being followed by closing admins. The rules state that unless an article fits the speedy deletion criteria, it should be listed here for 5 days after which an editor looks if concensus has been reached and takes appropriate action (Deletion policy). In the three cases below (all yesterday), I feel these rules have not been followed:


 * Articles for deletion/Left-Right politics and the War on Terrorism
 * Opened: 01:16, 31 July 2006
 * Closed: 10:49, 31 July 2006
 * This article was agreed on to read like an essay, which is original research and which isnot a reason for speedy deletion: Criteria for speedy deletion.


 * Articles for deletion/SDIMBY
 * Opened: 02:06, 31 July 2006
 * Closed: 22:02, 31 July 2006
 * This article was agreed on to be a neologism, which is not a reason for speedy deletion: Criteria for speedy deletion.


 * Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (second nomination)
 * Opened: 20:33, 30 July 2006
 * Closed: 14:43, 31 July
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (third nomination)
 * In this case, a new article was created under a name that had been deleted, on the same subject. The article, however, was completely different than the previous one, making it not a candidate for speedy deletion.

As I have also stated yesterday in response to this last closure, Speedy Deletion is a powerful tool here on Wikipedia, but should be used with caution. The criteria for speedy deletion are strict, for a reason. In case an article has been AfD tagged and is not an obvious speedy candidate, I think it is important that the AfD rules are followed correctly. Otherwise a dangerous precedent might be set for the deletion of articles that are unwanted in the view of a specific administrator. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that some AfDs are closed on the same day they are posted (or the day after) when they have received a fair amount of participation, especially when everyone (or almost everyone) recommends that the article be deleted. Since the nominations received participation, the admins involved may not see them as speedy deletions, just speedy closures. This seems to be what happened in the first two nominations, although the first one might be cutting it close with only 6 participants and lasting only 8.55 hours. I do not think this should be done, except in extreme cases (like when over 25 or 30 people have participated and it's becoming disruptive). I think that they should be left for five days so that there is a greater chance that people knowledgeable about the subject will see it and that any missing information relevant to the nomination will be found. As for the last nomination, I agree that the two versions are very different. However, if a much better version was deleted recently through AfD, it would make sense, to me, to delete the current version as well. -- Kjkolb 09:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do understand the reasons for deletion and agree with the deletion in these cases, it is just that interpreting the deletion rules liberally is something that should not be done easily in my opinion. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * About the Counter-Strike one, the old AfD'ed article was about the very same subject and included more information. If that copy was deleted, then this one would be even more likely to be deleted, and every single person at the current AfD agrees. It is a waste of everyone's time to restore it and post another AfD. —Centrx→talk &bull; 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but no time would have been wasted if the AfD rules had been followed from the start. I've seen this happen more often now and this particular AfD just happened to be one that I choose to pick to discuss this matter. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If an action is done by mistake or due to a different interpretation, when undoing it is moot (it's going to be deleted no matter what), then I don't see why you don't let it be. If there are so many of these early closures, then you should instead contest some that you actually think should be kept. If there aren't any, that indicates that the written policies don't reflect reasonable, actual practice, and need revision. That is, you could instead spend time getting things undeleted that actually should be undeleted or to correct the policies. About recreated AfD material, the question to ask is, "Would this new version have been deleted had it been the version at the original AfD?", "Is the speedy criterion really intended to allow unlimited recreation of articles on the same subject so long as they delete or add or rewrite a paragraph here or there?". —Centrx→talk &bull; 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For the counterstrike article, I endorse the deletion, but the article did not have a rewrite [of] a paragraph here or there, I have seen both versions and they were totally different. With regard do the other two I cannot tell if I wanted them to stay, since I have not been given the opportunity to look at them because they were closed so quickly (the reason I still endorse their deletion is because I trust the other editors and do not want to make an issue of more than one deletion at this time). With regard to the time spent on these issues, I see no harm in spending time on situations were I feel that the rules have not been followed even though I agree with the results. Its the precedent that it creates that worries me.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the early closure on that AfD, it was done accidentally. What I was actually doing is that I was closing the first 50 AfDs that I have relisted the night before. Only now having a look at it again, I realised that the nominator has placed this particular AfD at the top of the list (rather than the bottom), which I have unwittingly closed it thinking that it was among the 50 of the relisted. It is not my intention to close AfDs way earlier than the 120 hours' grace. If you like to have that AfD re-opened, feel free to let me know on my talkpage and I'll do so. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not seem to be necessary and is not the reason for this discussion, but thanks for your kind explanation. Since you are quite active in AfD, your opinion on this matter in general would certainly be appreciated, however. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not usual practice, at least for myself. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At least one also today:
 * Articles for deletion/Sanworld
 * This one was speedy deleted while being listed, did not fit CSD in my opinion. User:Fang Aili deleted it per CSD A7, but that does not include websites. If people want CSD A7 to include websites, the policy should be changed, not misused. Other than that, the deleting admin did not have the courtesy to close the AfD, as she also didn't do yesterday with Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (second nomination).

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

'unambiguous "keep" decisions'
What's the feeling on what constitutes an "unambiguous keep decision" when a non-admin is closing an AfD? I've closed a few lately that I think were pretty clear cut, but are there any other opinions (for reference, the ones I closed: 1 2 3 4 5)? Without commiting the vote-counting sin, is a single "delete" comment enough to call the debate "unambiguous" in the face of numerous good keep arguments? If it's a pretty good delete reason, then IMO it's not unambiguous - but what about something like this AfD which I just closed, where the only delete comment came from someone who self-admittedly had a strong conflict of interest against the article? I know this sort of thing is where common sense comes in, but have I hit/missed the mark? --jam es (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When looking at the rules stated in Deletion process, I would comment on your closures above as follows:
 * Clearly unambigous keep, so you were right to close it.
 * The consensus appears to be keep, but only few votes were cast and not unambiguous, so perhaps better to be left to an admin.
 * Unambigous keep, so no you were allowed to close it.
 * This was a delete, and therefore should have been closed by an admin.
 * This was a merge, but not unambiguous, so perhaps better to be left to an admin.
 * Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4 was already speedied through CAT:CSD, so I just cleaned up after the admin who didn't close the related AFD. Thanks for the analysis, I'll keep it in mind :) --jam  es (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I overlooked that fact. You were right to close number 4 in that case. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've closed many AfD's now and I'd have to say that unambiguous keeps are those who all of the parties agree with certainty it should be kept. I never close an AfD that has one delete vote, for I don't see on any pages where I'm able to do this. SynergeticMaggot 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting
The project WikiProject_Deletion_sorting mentioned on the project page seems to be defunct. Shouldn't the link to it be removed? JulesH 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad-Faith Nominations...
...are not every nomination that you think is a keep. Way too many people shout bad-faith for a nominations, when it is definately not that. A lot of editors genuinely nominate articles that they think violate guidlines, but are shot down by experienced editors. There is no reason to make people feel bad about a nomination...especially when it doesn't do anything except create discussion, and even more especially when other people concur with the nomination. Newnam(talk) 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. WP:AGF is policy, not a guideline; if someone regularly accuses others of bad faith over an AfD disagreement, they should be asked to tone things down.  If they persist despite this, they could (in the most extreme cases) be blocked for excessive personal attacks. Wild accusations of bad faith have absolutely no place on AfD.  --Aquillion 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about policy - hymn articles
I came across Panis Angelicus, O Salutaris Hostia, and Tantum Ergo. The last of the two hymns are excerpts from other hymns (Verbum Supernum Prodiens and Pange Lingua). These articles consist of 2-3 sentences, followed by the Latin and English text of the hymns. My first impression was that wikipedia is not a primary source, and that these articles probably need to be transwikified. Then I thought that maybe they were notable because Thomas Aquinas wrote them. Then I considered merges. Maybe they could all be merged into one article, and the actual text brought to wikisource or something like that. Then I thought that the last two hymns could possibly be merged with their parent hymn articles. As you can see, I have no idea what to do, if anything should be done. So is there precedent for hymn articles? Would these meet any criteria for deletion? Any suggestions of merge or transwikifing or any other ideas?--Andrew c 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know we're not voting...
But does it seem to anyone else that we're swinging back to the "keep everything" end of the cycle? Some sample recomendations from the 28 July page: I routinely disregard a "pure vote" without a rational, be it "delete," "keep," or "bicycle," and I'm often sorely tempted to disregard borderline nonsensical recomendations. But I see something like Articles for deletion/Lise Van Susteren and I'm paralysed. brenneman {L} 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting site. Notable enough.
 * Keep [...] The information in this article has the potential to be of use to someone somewhere at some time. [...]
 * Keep google shows 391 hits.
 * Keep. What's wrong with random collection of facts and trivia?
 * Keep -- there is ample precedent on Wikipedia for keeping articles on insignifigant people.
 * The example you give does not have a single Keep vote without a reason. So I am missing your point here. The fact that you do not agree with the reasons given (being that she is someone who runs Candidate for senate [and is] host of AM radio show in a large market) is a different thing though. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Ok, I'll be less nice about it and come right to the point. There are several parts to an XfD, in order of importance: Beginning with facts finding, then policy interpretation, then editor's opinion.  If a discussion comes down to a decision based on "opinon" like this, and those opining keep are mostly known to be highly active XfD contributors who diverge widely from the norm with regards to thier stance on inclusion, what to do?  We're in some way doing sampling to determine "community consensus" and this is a biased sample. -  brenneman  {L} 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreement with brenneman  {L} .  The point is that some editors apparently disregard all stated WP policy in their afd considerations and nominations.  I presume we're supposed to be working from WP guidelines and policies for a reason, in this context to give rationality and sense to the afd process with a presumed level-playing field of known and stated policies to follow.  I am therefore aghast when people nominate for delete or keep with rationalizations like, "Not interesting" or "Possibly useful".  My two cents is that afd discussions and considerations should therefore take attention of nominations and issues relating to the relevant policies and guidelines.  We need reason, but not any reason.  Tychocat 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that sometimes people will just really want an article kept, and will quote any relevant policy, even if it means making policy up as they go. Your last example is a commonly quoted made-up policy.  I've seen them sporadically in many Afds, although people usually follow up with actual policy, and the few made-up ones don't seem to sway the outcome. I'm not sure what would be done about it, thoughm so I guess that's why we're not voting.-Sanbeg 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No Reason
If an article has been tagged with a reason which is not supported and backed on the discussion page or anywhere else visable and the user has been contacted without response, can a tag be removed if a reason is included within the edit, on the discussion page and the tagger's talk page? Thanks --JRA WestyQld2 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If its an AfD tag, no, it would have to remain listed here at AfD for 5 days to reach consensus. Most other tags can be removed yes, this is a wiki... Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a notability tag, is that ok? --JRA WestyQld2 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ? This shouldn't be asked here, actually; probably the village pump (policy) it's the better place. My take is that if there no explanation has been provided for the tag, it can be removed (Liberatore, 2006). 12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but what if the explanation is unsatisfactory in nature? Can the tag still be removed? -- S iva1979 Talk to me  03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's no different from removing a sentence (or adding one) from an article.  It's called editing, and there's nothing wrong with it.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In such cases, I'd also add an explanation of why the reason was considered unsatisfactory on the talk page. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More on Speedy Keep
I'm having an issue with some of the situations I've ran up against while closing keeps (Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep -- for details). Its just not clear to me when to close as speedy keep (the implications are leaning toward a fast keep). I bring the topic here because I am getting no comments on the topic, and i'm thinking that noone actually watches the page. Any help will be appreciated. SynergeticMaggot 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really understand the question you're asking. If a nomination clearly meets the speedy keep criteria listed at Speedy keep then the afd discussion can get closed immediately, there's no set time limit. On your comments at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep you seem to be talking about unanimous keeps after a few days of discussion, which isn't the same as speedy keep, they're just normal keep decisions and Speedy keep doesn't really have anything to do with them. - Bobet 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, and thanks for the reply. It just wasnt clear to me how fast the speedy keep really is. For instance, how many users saying "keep" would it take? My usual number is above 4-5. And I never close a case as non conensus - resulting in keep. SynergeticMaggot 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless the discussion meets the speedy criteria, you shouldn't close it before the five days is up. I've seen AfDs where you get a few dogpiling 'keep per nom' or 'delete, nn' votes, and then someone comes up with an actual argument to the contrary, sometimes on the 3rd day or later, which can turn the discussion the other way. The five day limit is there for a reason. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

article incubation period
It seems like there should be a speedy keep criterion about non-speediable articles that are less than X hours old. Editors are getting bitten when they do progressive saves (I know I haven't started several articles on my to-do list just because I don't have the consecutive hours to do a proper stub that will prevent deletion). I've seen this in more than one place lately, and it bears thinking about. Our instructions for AfD have an entire section on things that can be done before AfD, after all, and has for quite some time. I know New Pages Patrol is flooded with crap, but could we try assuming good faith on our new editors who may not understand the sandbox? -- nae'blis 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For times like these I thought admins just userfied the article for the new users? That and kindly reminding them, or making them away of sandbox. I just had an article I created proded, and is now on AfD. When I started the article out, I had the cat's, sections, main articles, references, expand tag, and a few items with citations. In my opinion, the prod to AfD process gives the creator/editor/contributor enough time to source the article, expand, and make it worth saving. This is somewhere around 10 days if you dont remove the prod tag, and about 5 days as long as the article shows some signs of notability. For these reasons I wouldnt care for a criteria, since in most cases, the contributor is lazy and wont work on the article anymore, or the article really isnt worth saving. I agree in most cases people jump the gun and go striaght for AfD. This is the real issue I think. Not saving worthless articles because they dont qualify for speedy. I mean, everday, about 100 to 150 articles on AfD are not speedy-able. So where would that leave us? SynergeticMaggot 17:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This suggestion would make the job of new pages patrollers massively more difficult, essentially making AfD unavailable to them entirely. It is also a solution searching for a problem; the five days it takes to go through AfD already serves as all the "incubation period" that an article needs. Arguing that we should wait x hours when they're already going to get five days is silly. Also, I'm puzzled by your statement that "I haven't started several articles on my to-do list just because I don't have the consecutive hours to do a proper stub that will prevent deletion." That is what stub notices are for.  When dealing with topics that are clearly encyclopedic, a few sentences and a stub tag should suffice; for less clear ones, your stub might need a short paragraph or so and an external link or two to help people evaluate the topic... such stubs generally only show up on AfD when the nominator asserts that the topic is unencyclopedic, which is not normally something that can be fixed through expansion. --Aquillion 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "add a new entry" link is broken
When I clicked on it, it took me to a page called "Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 &lt;august-gen&gt; 6". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it for today, but we need to find the template that LDBot uses to update it every day for the new date. There's a system variable that changed. Fan-1967 03:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lightdarkness has made the change in the template, so we should be OK from here. Fan-1967 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Coolness. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
I've written an essay on some of the bad arguments I've seen on here at User:Daduzi/Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (shortcut WP:ILIKEIT) and would welcome feedback and/or modifications from other AfDers. -- Daduzi  talk  21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO, Short arguments aren't necessarily bad, in some real obvious cases. I.e. if nom says it's an ad, and it looks like an ad, "per nom" seems reasonable.  I'd prefer not to make it more difficult to delete obvious junk.


 * Also, the argument that anything in IMDB is automatically notable enough for wikipedia seems to come up a lot, so you should include that. -Steve Sanbeg 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Feedback: (1) IMHO, without an example of good arguments, it's hard to assess your points re bad arguments. (2) Yes, it's true that we're not voting, but does that really mean that if someone has already clearly articulated the reason to delete or keep, everyone who agrees with them should stay off of the page?  If so, it might be preferable to say that.  TheronJ 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Subpage category
While checking the nominations to complete, I spotted the use of a instead of Category:BlaBla. My impression is that AfD subpages should not be categorized, so these kinds of problems can be fixed automatically. I added this change to the way DumbBOT completes nominations. Any objection to that? (Liberatore, 2006). 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New Project
Due to a number of AfD's that have been closed as keep or speedy keep by non admins, a WikiProject has been created in an effort to help reduce the number of resubmissions by placing the oldafd tag on article talk pages. For more information, please see WikiProject AfD closing. SynergeticMaggot 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Toward a (hopefully) more neutral point of view
I attempted to edit the Articles for deletion section to more accurately reflect the fact that notability is a contentious issue. I feel strongly that the original statement concerning notability being a "good argument" is inaccurate and creates an unfair bias in promulgating one side of the conflict as a "guideline" when the matter is not settled at all.

My edits were reverted; I'm restoring them with modifications to try to present a more neutral and balanced view. (Upon review, I found my original edits weren't very neutral, either.) The original text, my edit, and my addition are below. I'd like to see this language or other balanced language remain, rather than returning to language that, though many may wish otherwise, is not factual.

The original:


 * Good arguments for deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:OR), "unencyclopedic" (violates WP:ENC), and "non-notable" (for example, for a person, does not meet WP:BIO). The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion.

Edit:


 * Good arguments for deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:OR), and "unencyclopedic" (violates WP:ENC), and "non-notable" (for example, for a person, does not meet WP:BIO) . The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion.

Addition:


 * There is disagreement among editors as to whether describing an article as "non-notable" is a good argument for deletion. While there are guidelines on notability for many different topics (they're listed in the "Centralized discussion" box above), notability itself is not a policy and is a contentious topic for some editors. Sometimes using notability as an argument for deletion may turn the discussion about the article into a discussion about what constitues notability, a discussion to be found in abundance elsewhere (see Non-notability, Wikipedia talk:Non-notability, Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability).

&mdash; Chidom   talk   03:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment IMO this is way too drastic a change to be made unilaterally. Please try getting a consensus before making such a change. In the meantime, the change in the instructions is inappropriate. If you deliberately encourage editors to ignore notability (which, let's face it, this does) we'll have an article on every teenager with two MP3's on his myspace page, provided they're verifiable. Fan-1967 03:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit does not "encourage editors to ignore notability", I don't know if you read my comment above or not. Like it or not, notability isn't a policy; my edit is more accurate than saying that notability is a good argument for deletion—that is not a unanimous viewpoint. I specifically asked that the original, language not be restored as it is not factual. I'm not married to my edit, I would like to see balanced langague; however, I doubt that there will be any discussion now that you've reverted the change, however. &mdash; Chidom   talk   03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't a policy; it is a guideline, and one followed by the majority of editors. Notability as a good argument for deletion is not a unanimous viewpoint, but it is an extremely common viewpoint, and those who dispute it totally are a tiny minority. WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, WP:PORN are all guidelines for notability, and most AFD's are judged based on those standards. It is extremely rare to ever see anyone argue that notability is not an issue; there is contention on the level of notability which should be required. You would like to see notability de-emphasized in the instructions. I haven't seen you gather support from others for the change. I'll repeat, work on getting a consensus first. Fan-1967 03:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right&mdash;it isn't a policy, it's a guideline. However, it's cited in the same sentence with policies with no mention of it not being a policy; the effect (whether the intent or not) is that it is presented as another policy. I'm not sure why there is such an objection to having a factual statement on the page instead of a biased one, but I am resigned to it being so. &mdash; Chidom   talk   05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Chidom's proposed change looks like a good idea to me. -- Dragonfiend 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your proposal implies that non-notability should be avoided as an argument for deletion. The status quo is undesirable, but your proposal omits the fact that notability is an acceptable reason to keep or delete an article. (Many people are confused by what policy actually is; I can still remember the time when people argued that non-notability should never be accepted as a reason to delete an article because it isn't mentioned in any policies.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Chidom will have read some of the following already, as it's an edited version of what I said at my talk page) The argument that 'non-notability' isn't a good reason to argue for deletion is on the fringes. It encompasses a natural conclusion of WP:V, WP:NPOV (which we can't maintain if people are allowed to create articles only they are interested in) and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, numerous widely-accepted guidelines plus, IIRC, Jimbo's own views on the subject (unfortunately I forget where the relevant mailing list posts are quoted). Editors reading this page aren't looking for the ins and outs of the various debates surrounding deletion - they want to know how to participate. Telling them that 'non-notability' may be used to justify deletion does that - telling them that some dispute it just creates unnecessary confusion. Anyone who wants to know about the arguments surrounding notability will find them at Wikipedia talk:Notability and other forums. We should avoid the temptation to try and tell people everything that they could conceivably find useful at some point, as they'll think 'tl;dr' and not read any of it. See instruction creep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. If notability is a guideline "followed by the majority of editors", that doesn't necessarily make it acceptable. If it is a "common viewpoint", with only a "tiny minority" opposing it, the minority still exists. The argument against notability may be "on the fringes", but that doesn't mean it's an invalid argument.

There was a time when the vast majority of people thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Despite the majority opinion, it just wasn't so. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that we can talk about differences without (hopefully) fear of being burned at the stake for heresy.

Nothing in my language says "that non-notability should be avoided as an argument for deletion." The language is a factual account; it is meant to inform the reader that non-notability isn't universally accepted as an argument. If the reader wishes to avoid it, that's a decision they can make with better information than is available to them presently. The statement that "notability is an acceptable reason to keep or delete an article" is not a fact, as is stated; it is an opinion. There is well-documented evidence that many people disagree with the opinion. The current language does imply that it's a fact, and further implies that notability is a policy; it is neither.

Jim Wales did chime in on one of the forerunners of the whole topic of notability, Fame and Importance: Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance.

"It isn't the lack of fame that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability."

– Jimbo Wales

For the sake of concerns about 'tl;dr' (which I assume means "too long, don't read"), please propose more concise language, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. No, we don't need to educate every editor about everything they need to know in this one place; neither do we need to mislead them with misinformation&mdash;which is what the current language does.

The truth, however uncomfortable for some to admit, is that the current language is biased. It ignores the controversy and promulgates the view of one side of that controversy. I've tried to propose unbiased language. If what I've proposed is too long, propose something else that's unbiased or remove the current language. Deletion might be best vis-&agrave;'-vis instruction creep, it is, after all, what I proposed to start with. &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You say you've proposed "unbiased language". Maybe, from your viewpoint, it seems unbiased. To me, it seems like that last paragraph boils down to: Avoid bringing up notibility - it might lead to contention. That doesn't seem unbiased. Read through a day's worth of AFD's and count how many have notibility as the primary (often the only) criterion. Fan-1967 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, I didn't say I had proposed "unbiased language". I said I had tried to. As far as reading through a day's worth of AfD's and counting the number who have notability as the primary/only criterion for deletion, that boils down the point of the whole disagreement. There are those that feel that notability shouldn't be the primary/only criterion. I still think that my initial thought&mdash;to delete the biased lanaguage&mdash;might be the easiest solution rather than trying to find language that everyone can agree is unbiased. &mdash; Chidom   talk   02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it seems to me that you've never heard of how Wikipedia works; we don't prescribe policy and guidelines. Our policies and guidelines are supposed to describe how things work. The only prescriptive policies are those necessary for avoiding unnecessary friction, e.g. WP:FU, WP:BLP, etc., and others crucial to our goals such as WP:NPOV. Most everything else is descriptive. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, I have indeed read/"heard" quite a bit about how Wikipedia is supposed to work; I've also witnessed how it actually works, quite to the contrary at times. Regardless of whether it's descriptive or prescriptive, false and misleading language should go. &mdash; Chidom   talk   15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a strawman. Our point is that yes, we should not mislead people. However, we should not waste valuable parts of readers' attention spans chronicling the debate over notability. Just point out that it is a controversial but acceptable reason to delete an article (if it's not acceptable, somebody shoot me for all those articles I've erroneously deleted), and link the interested reader to some other page fully detailing the debate over notability. Johnleemk | Talk 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be a strawman; I've witnessed AfD policy be ignored, let alone guidelines. Your proposed solution still doesn't address the problem with the language. To say that the notability argument is "controversial but acceptable" when the controversy is regarding whether or not it is acceptable is a misstatement and lends weight to one side of the controversy over the other. The fact that you deleted articles on the basis of notability doesn't mean that you did so erroneously; if notability was found to be an acceptable argument in those cases, fine. I don't understand why it's such a problem to delete the inaccurate language instead of making any sort of statement about notability at all. &mdash; Chidom   talk   20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - While notablity requirements are not policy, they are a guideline and may be taken into account by editors who choose to do so., wording of course can be changed, but perhaps something like this could put this to bed? HighInBC 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say "While notability requirements are not binding policy, they are generally accepted guidelines". That explains the difference between "policy" and "guideline" on Wikipedia for those that may not know it yet, and my definition of "guideline" as "generally accepted" ought to be uncontroversial as that's the definition used by Template:Guideline.
 * Alternative suggestion: Change the first sentence of the disputed paragraph, "Good arguments for deletion are:" to say "Commonly used arguments for deletion are". Most readers will rightly interpret "commonly used" as "good", and I do think it's more accurate. The arguments aren't always good arguments because the subject may actually be verifiable, notable etc, but they're indisputably commonly seen... and they're commonly seen because they are good reasons if you do your fact-checking and use them correctly. I think that might solve the problem while only adding a single extra word. I would be happy with both changes being made, but it would be my second choice. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to go with Sam's version. I think it works. All the other suggestions seem to be suggesting (to one degree or other) that notability should be discouraged as an argument. This one actually is neutral. Fan-1967 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the change with one slight modification, moving "arguments" to the start of the sentence and adding "recommend": "Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion..."

I've added the links to Notability and Non-notability after the current "Also, please see" as being more current discussions of this topic. 'sallright?

I think this is much better; thanks for the disucssion. &mdash; Chidom   talk   16:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Template Afd footer
There is a problem with the template when second nominations are listed. It came to my notice when a user was having problems with a second listing. I have given a detailed explanation here. After doing that I came across this discussion on this page. So it seems that other users too have had the same problem. Please comment on this on the template talk page for sake of keeping all comments in one place. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 10:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)