Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 56

Too many relistings?
Is it just me, or are too many articles for deletion with minimal input being relisted, some for multiple times, when there's a clear--if sparsely attended--consensus? Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the deletionists doesn't get their way, they can nominate the same article their friends did, for deletion, as many times as they want. And if that doesn't work, they can delete a large portion of the article, or eliminate it anyway with a merge/redirect if there aren't enough people around to notice and protest.  Meanwhile if someone sees something that was deleted, and tries to restore it, it is an uphill battle.  Horrible system really.  So much easier to destroy than to create.   D r e a m Focus  09:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Relisting as in extending the time before an AFD is decided to get more input, not listing the same article for AFD after it has previously survived.  There is a problem with too many nominations for people to sort through though.  D r e a m Focus  12:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the issue that unites the above two remarks is low participation at AfD. To Dream Focus, I would say that it's hard enough to delete material from Wikipedia. The policies are there to protect the interests of genuine content creators; the issue is that AfD participation is so low that it's a lottery which policy or guideline is actually implemented.  Jumping back to the original question, I quite like this trend.  I think it's better for a closer to relist than to risk making a mistake by implementing a very small consensus.  So I think the question we should consider is, how do we motivate experienced editors to comment on AfDs, given that it's so massively unrewarding at the moment?— S Marshall  Talk /Cont  11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect AfD will always be "so massively unrewarding" - it's as popular as being a tax collector, 90% of what goes to AfD is crap that no-one will miss but some of the rest has merits and may be defended vigorously - and the fanboys, etc. outnumber serious editors hugely, so there's plenty more where the crap came from.
 * How about looking at it from the other end, via the grading system. Create a new lower grade or 2 below unassessed, and show the gradings to all readers including IPs. The fanboys won't like seeing their faves listed as "below acceptable" or whatever, but to do anything it they'll have to face reviewers who know and apply the rules. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many AfDs nowadays go underattended. I view deletion as a rather extreme action—and I'm sure many other admins do as well—and one can hardly claim one or two comments constitute community consensus. If it's indisputably necessary, I don't see anything wrong with relisting a discussion multiple times; on the other hand, using a relist as a lazy way out of making a judgment call is inappropriate. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, will AfD involvement ever improve if article after article that has garnered no more than three comments is relisted. Yesterday, I went through and closed as "no consensus" articles that had been relisted both a first and a second time, with ZERO !votes in between the two relistings.  I'm of the opinion that a relisting should really be used to extend close but active discussions, not as a "punt" to next week.  I've been closing uncontested deletes (even with just 1-2 others agreeing with the nom) as deletes, and most of the other underattended relistings as no consensus, in hopes of unclogging the queue. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the unsigned comment about grades lower than "unassessed". :)  I can see it now:  "This article has been assessed as complete bollocks on the project's quality scale."— S Marshall  Talk /Cont  12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or some epithet that fanboys regard as the ultimate put-down >-) --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "This article is full of fail"? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there a suggestion a little while ago concerning AfD's with a continuous lack of discussion be considered PROD candidates? I can't find it, but do you know if it ended up somewhere? ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd object to that. AfD is where you come if prod fails, not the other way around.— S Marshall  Talk /Cont  15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find it either but I do recall the suggestion, and I do recall that it failed to gain any kind of consensus to implement it. Shereth 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 54, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53, and the discussions that they in turn link to. Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Casting votes
Is it appropriate for closing admins to make casting votes as in this and this? I'd say no, because it turns him into a participant and means he can't close it. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also just found this and this. Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I relisted two of them, I noticed too. These are all invalid closures and should be overturned at WP:DRV. Per WP:DGFA, the job of a closing admin is to assess consensus, not just to cast a vote, and at any rate AfD is not a vote.  Sandstein   12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So DRV rather than simply reopening them? I understood DRV was for where the administrator's assessment of consensus is in question, rather than the validity of his close altogether.Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was mindful to seek an overturn at DRV myself; for one thing, since AfD is (theoretically, anyway) to seek out the proper policies and guidelines to apply to the situations, I'd be extremely interested in hearing the policy basis for the admin's "closing vote."  RGTraynor  12:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen this sort of AfD/move/etc discussion, which goes on wordily repetitively intermittently, some of them for weeks, until it is many times as big as the article which it is about, and never comes to a concensus. I felt that someone had to make a decision. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you could explain your policy basis for doing so? I don't have a problem, myself, for bringing to a close an AfD discussion that's gone eight days, but since the sticking point is whether the sources discuss the subject in substantive detail, as WP:GNG requires, which of the sources listed have you looked over and found to do so?   RGTraynor  12:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, treat them as cases of "no concensus, so keep". I have known such disputed matters to be discussed repetitively inconclusively for weeks. There are claims of nuclear blueprints being found in the Al Qaida guest house, Kabul: that surely makes it somewhat like noteworthy?, given that Pakistan has nukes and Iran is trying to get nukes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with any of your closes, Anthony, but I do think the closer should summarise his or her reasons, especially in borderline cases (such as implied by the term "casting vote"). --NSH001 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with Anthony Appleyard's "casting vote" closure, but closing all of those as "no consensus, default to keep" seems absolutely reasonable. They're all the kind of terminally-inconclusive discussions that mutter along for ages, never forming a consensus. ~ mazca  talk 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found these 4 AfD's pointed to in Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 22, which was pointed to in Articles for deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In case of Al Aqua military training camp, the AfD is already about ten times as long as the article, as measured by text length in being-edited mode. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The closing role should be distinct from the !voting role.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought experiment. Had he just said "no consensus defaults to keep", would we be having this conversation? Protonk (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, it's inappropriate WP:COI. That's why crats don't close RfAs they voted in, even if the result was obvious. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What Protonk said. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn but not closed
Articles for deletion/Tchibo - nom withdrew three days ago, but what looks like a SNOW keep case is still open. Any reason for this (apart from admin shortage)? NVO (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed now. I would say that one reason may be that people aren't crusing afd's early to close them, but it may just be a shortage of admins.  Sigh.  Maybe I should go back to AfDs. Protonk (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you find ones like this again, feel free to close it yourself, or poke the nom to have them do it. There's nothing wrong with non-admins closing withdrawn discussions.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 18:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just make sure that there are no outstanding delete (or non-keep, depending on interpretation) recommendations, per WP:Speedy keep criterion 1. This used to be a fairly common error, but I haven't seen it recently. Flatscan (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-listed debates
DumbBOT seems to have stopped automatically listing debates that are not added to a daily log page. This has resulted in quite a few AfD's that are languishing in limbo:


 * Articles for deletion/List of Khatri Surnames
 * Articles for deletion/Small farm
 * Articles for deletion/Icosikaitetragon
 * Articles for deletion/Inprocomm IPN2220
 * Articles for deletion/Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria
 * Articles for deletion/Ixquick
 * Articles for deletion/Boomtown Theatre
 * Articles for deletion/Broward Hall (Gainesville, Florida)
 * Articles for deletion/Business biomimetics
 * Articles for deletion/Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association
 * Articles for deletion/Toronto Airport Limousines
 * Articles for deletion/Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948
 * Articles for deletion/List of New York Yankees owners
 * Articles for deletion/Mungoball
 * Articles for deletion/Twenty Wan (Card Game)
 * Articles for deletion/Apocalypse War
 * Articles for deletion/Blade Ship
 * Articles for deletion/Helius project
 * Articles for deletion/Susuwatari
 * Articles for deletion/1984 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

What should I do with these? I could list them on todays log but I don't want to flood it? ascidian | talk-to-me  21:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 20 or so listings won't really flood the log, I would say go ahead and list them. Shereth</b> 21:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I closed one while looking through AfD cats to comment on. Before relisting consider checking to see if the discussion is basically complete. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These are all now dealt with. About half were relisted by Ascidian to a daily log page, and will be closed in due course. The remainder were generally ones where consensus was quite clear already - these have been closed by either myself or Tedder. ~ mazca  talk 12:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Name formatting
I am proposing the following page moves for the deletion request pages: All future requests be named as follows, as well as move old requests: Log date pages moved: Logs moved: This is a more organized format for the pages, and will be much better than the current names. What do you think? -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion to Deletion/Requests/Articles
 * Templates for deletion to Deletion/Requests/Templates
 * Files for deletion to Deletion/Requests/Files
 * Deletion review to Deletion/Requests/Review
 * Deletion/Requests/Articles/NAME
 * Deletion/Requests/Templates/NAME
 * Deletion/Requests/Files/NAME
 * Deletion/Requests/Review/NAME
 * Instead of:
 * Articles for deletion/NAME
 * Templates for deletion/NAME
 * Files for deletion/NAME
 * Deletion review/Log/DATE
 * Articles for deletion/Log/DATE to Deletion/Requests/Articles/Log/DATE
 * Templates for deletion/Log/DATE to Deletion/Requests/Templates/Log/DATE
 * Files for deletion/Log/DATE to Deletion/Requests/Files/Log/DATE
 * Deletion review/Log/DATE to Deletion/Requests/Review/Log/DATE
 * Archived deletion discussions to Deletion/Requests/Articles/Log/DATE
 * Templates for deletion/Log/Archives to Deletion/Requests/Templates/Log/DATE
 * Files for deletion/Log to Deletion/Requests/Files/Log/DATE
 * Deletion review/Log to Deletion/Requests/Review/Log/DATE
 * Given that you are presenting all of these proposed changes as subsets of the current Deletion policy page, how does your naming scheme (similar to the one not adopted at WT:RFA) take into account those that are not deletion-based but rather discussion-based, namely WP:CFD and WP:RFD? ~ Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 06:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  06:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal is just as bad and not thought through as the similar one made on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I recommend that you go back and read the several past discussions of moving this page, starting with the ones in 2005 and January 2009, and address some of the basic pre-requisites that need to be addressed by any proposal to move this page.  Here's a hint as to why doing so is a very good idea: This recommendation comes to you from the person who owns User:Uncle G's major work 'bot. Uncle G (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia_talk:RFA, I think this is a solution looking for a problem. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Juliancolton. As I said in the RfA proposal, it's providing no benefit, and it is more trouble than it's worth. It's a solution looking for a problem. The adage "don't fix what isn't broken" comes to mind. Additionally, the recent ArbCom's reorganizing of pages has made it harded to navigate, expecially when you're used to the old system. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it. ( X! ·  talk )  · @246  · 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Busywork. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisting
I've been noticing lately that AfDs are becoming increasingly under-attended, to the point where it seems most discussions are being relisted at least once. The process definitely needs more participants, but I don't think the current method of relisting is effective when it affects such a large portion of AfDs. Thoughts? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond further notifications to possible participants, it is difficult to know. We could lower the bar allowed to establish consensus under WP:RELIST, but then we're leaving the fate of an article in maybe one or two hands.  The other alternative is to encourage more NC closures if there are too few comments. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not sure there is much that can be done. For better or worse much of the participation on AfD is limited to picking topics which look like they might be "interesting" to discuss. I'm not sure if there are many people who actually take the time to sit down and review large quantities of AfD discussions just because they are there - as evidenced by the fact that there are numerous such under-attended discussions that are difficult to close. The only thing that I can think of that might help is if there were some way to bring more attention to Category:Relisted AfD debates. I am just not sure that there is any way to encourage people to be interested in something that is, honestly, not very interesting. As an aside, has something changed in the relisting template recently? The relisted discussions in today's log seems to be doing something funky to the table of contents. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 16:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a change, but it's already been reverted due to that issue. Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some possible ways to increase participation:
 * More automatic notifications of article creators and significant contributors. I know there's a bot that contacts people if they're made 5+ non-minor edits; perhaps that could be adjusted to widen the notifications, perhaps based on characters contributed to the current article? :Add an option on your Watchlist to see all current AfDs and prods flagged up for every article you've edited, in case you miss the nomination. Could also do this for RfCs etc.
 * More listing on Deletion sorting pages, which surely could be automated by bots if it isn't already. Every AfD should be in at least one category.
 * Greater prominence of articles up for deletion on WikiProject pages.
 * If an article links to or is linked from an article that is up for deletion, a note at the top of the talk page could flag this up.
 * Have a bot like SuggestBot that lists AfDs you might be interested in on your talk page every 5 days.
 * Have a list of the 5 latest AfD nominations on the Wikipedia homepage. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. Would an RfC on the topic of how to widen participation in deletion discussions be a good idea? Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall a time when there was weeks long backlogs of unclosed AfD discussions, and it has been quite a while since those disappeared. I suspect that the relative number of participants is the same, except more articles are being relisted instead of kept open for 10+ days. When you consider it, a relist is more fair than just leaving it open because a) older discussions have less eyes, and thus people are less likely to put in an opinion because they feel it will not recieve much feedback/make much of a difference, and b) closing admins don't feel they have to make a quick decision because it's been open a long time. No clear concensus after 7 days? Relist it, generate more fresh discussion. It's Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Deletion Right Now. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, seriously tho, there is a boat load of relisted AfDs. Looking at todays, I'd say roughly half are relists, and maybe only half of those relists have more than two !votes. I still think it's more fair this way, but it looks like things are getting bogged down. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fence, the User:Erwin85Bot is not working now, not only does not contact those who have 5 or more major edits, it is not contacting creators also. I am not sure when the bot works, but I had to notify two editors recently of an AfD. Erwin  wrote:
 * "The bot actually already notifies all authors with more than 5 non-minor edits. Trouble is that it uses the toolserver's replicated database to do so, but that the toolserver has been having some problems these last few days. I'll probably rewrite my bot a bit to in that case only notify the first author as it hasn't been running now at all."
 * Ikip (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm almost certain that the old backlog was due to the absence of tools to close AfDs. I seem to recall the backlog changing from multiple days to a problem where the "old afd" page was empty at the end of 5 days fairly quickly once a few AfD closing scripts made their way around. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the bot should remove Category:Relisted AfD debates a lot faster. Whenever I go into that category, I keep seeing already closed debates. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Enforcing civility would likely help. Who needs extra drama? Thus those who remain either have to adapt defend or fight back. It's tiresome. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I think admins need to be more WP:BOLD at closing AfDs with only a few comments. People often don't bother to comment on AfDs that have "obvious" results. If you've got a clearly non-notable person/band/etc in an AfD which only ever reached AfD because a PROD was removed, close it as Delete.  If you've got an AfD with a few comments but one of them shows clear notability in reliable sources, then close it as Keep.  If anyone really objects, there's always DRV - but I doubt that many would end up there. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem with AfD is that 90-95% of the nominations should be deleted -- & they are being nominated as a sanity check before the article is converted to stray electrons. And I write that as an "inclusionist". When I nominate an article for deletion, what I hope to see is not a bunch of "Me too"s or "Delete with fire" responses, but some evidence that at least one other editor has checked my argument for errors, & either confirmed that the article should be deleted or that there is one or more good reasons for keeping it. Sadly, no one seems to do this. -- llywrch (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite often they're not even a sanity check, but have been forced there because someone (often the article creator) removed a PROD for no apparent reason. The inability to replace a PROD removed without any sort of explanation is one reason why AFD is clogged. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that that's true. I've been doing Proposed Deletion patrol (alongside AfD Patrol) recently, and I'm not seeing the proposed deletions that end up at AFD as a large fraction of overall AFD traffic.  I think that the bigger problem for traffic is indeed as identified here: relistings. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a few that do. I could name some editors whose AFD discussion contributions I have high confidence, based upon experience, in being the product of good research and actual effort put in to double-check things independently.  But it is perpetual September at AFD just as it is in the rest of Wikipedia.  There are always new editors, who come along and from what they see think that what's needed from them is simply another drive-by no-effort vote (or, indeed, nomination), who need education in what actions will actually benefit both AFD and the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, you are right Uncle G. (I should have remembered an exchange I had with A.B. in the past where she convinced me with careful research I was wrong.) I've been hoisted by own sweeping generalization! -- llywrch (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether AFD participation is up or down compared to years gone by. I've seen no actual measurements.  However, one thing that it observably is, is lumpy.  There are discussions that it seems no-one wants to participate in, and there are discussions that attract tens of editors.  But that's been the case for a long time at AFD.  (Indeed, it's one reason that any attempts to measure participation must be done with care, lest they be ill-founded or outright meaningless.) Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is relisting. Relisting is a good response to the problem, which is a lack of participation in those discussions. The solution is not to stop relisting, but to work out ways to widen participation - I suggest some above, I'd appreciate comments on my ideas before they vanish into the ether! Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem, in my view, is people relisting debates that plainly aren't supposed to be relisted. WP:RELIST isn't being followed very well — just breezing through today's relists there are:
 * One AFD relisted a second time
 * One AFD relisted a third time
 * One AFD relisted with 6 contributors, evenly divided
 * One AFD relisted with 8 contributors, evenly divided
 * Each of these, and a lot of other discussions, should be closed as no consensus rather than running through another week of discussion that's not very likely to generate a result. We owe articles a "speedy trial", as it were — the focus should be on getting a result, within the second week if not the first, and not having the spectre of deletion hanging over an article for ages. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what Protonk said about tools to close AFDs is spot on. I'd add that it's also infinitely easier to relist AFDs now too. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that would make the process nicer is if we all really did see it as a discussion rather than a form of debating competition to try and 'win' one's preferred outcome. I certainly know I'm guilty of this sometimes. I would also ban any comments addressed to the closer, or noting the veracity of others' !votes. If someone is making erroneous arguments then we should just trust the closing admin to correctly weigh the arguments, as these sort of comments mostly raise the tension level in the debates, and shouldn't make any difference if the admin is doing their job. If AfD is a more convivial place then people might be more likely to get involved. Quantpole (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On September 3, I already see a bunch of relistings, some of which are on their third or fourth relisting. I tend to think that such relistings may be excessive. Either there is consensus to delete, or there isn't. Once an AfD has already been relisted twice, a closing admin ought to make a decision rather than trying for another relisting. If we wind up with more "no consensus keeps", I can live with that. The nominator, or someone else, can always come back later and write a better nomination for deletion that might actually attract some interest from other AfD participants. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I am going to propose at WT:DPR that a third relisting be removed as an option. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't see the relisting as a big problem. From what I see, there are articles that people just seem to skim past because of their title etc. (I don't choose to look at every AfD, just ones that sound like an area I have interest in and I suspect others are the same). For example, I rarely comment on AfD's about college professors, soccer players from other countries or computer software. Not my interest and there are things involved in those discussion I don't feel like keeping track of (what league is professional, what chair is considered notable). I suspect others are the same way. I've seen AfD's get a third re-list, then get 3-4 votes and a consensus achieved. Just because an article didn't appeal to broad and immediate interest right off the bat doesn't mean it should just be a "close no consensus". The third relisting isn't hurting anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Book, Google News, Google scholar hits automatically in AfDs
Anyone think it would be beneficial to automatically add: ...to all AFDs? Yes, some results will be wrong. That said, it would helpful for editors like me who casually search AFDs.
 * 1) Google Book
 * 2) Google News
 * 3) Google scholar hits

Example: Monopoly pub crawl,

Google news: 4, Google books: 4, Google scholar: 0

Ikip (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think it's a bad idea. It's too hard to construct appropriate search terms, and easy to get it badly wrong - it could just confuse things. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact that it's easy to think of a disadvantage is not a very good argument against trying something. If someone had asked 10 years ago, "why not start an online encyclopedia that any member of the public can edit?", lots of people would say "I think it's a bad idea". I see no disadvantage to trying this suggestion, and then abandoning it if it doesn't work. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Number of hits only has a very tenuous relationship with notability. It is the fact that some individual hits are (i) reliable sources and (ii) contain "significant coverage" that demonstrates notability. I don't think further emphasis on WP:GOOGLEHITS (be they general, News, Book or Scholar) is a good idea (hit-counting arguments are already too prevalent). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would need very careful monitoring of any AfD where this was being done. Otherwise I still think it might be disruptive and of course you wouldn't know if it was working. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it could be done in a way that de-emphasizes the number of hits, and emphasizes the content of the hits. I agree that it might be disruptive. I can think of one good way to find out if it is... -GTBacchus(talk) 14:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bad idea. Links to the searches, yes - great. The number of hits? Useless except for wikilawyering and fallacious arguments. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat


 * Google searches are not references. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Google pages must have some great relationship to notability, because the find bar was just added to all afds. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion Google sites are what most editors use almost exclusively to establish notability in deletion discussions. No one is suggesting google searches are references :/
 * I am not suggesting creating appropriate search terms. I know that certain titles like List of multiple swimming medalist in international competitions Cult Ritual (band) and Tim Alexander (filmmaker) will garner incorrect 0 Google hits. These are in the minority of most deletion discussions.
 * Certain phrases or names like Monopoly pub crawl are a great example of why this would be extremely useful. Editors can quickly see that this term has 4/4/0 hits. Therefore they would not need to search google scholar. If the same word or specific phrase has 0/0/0 hits, you would know there it is probably not notable. this will not automatically help those who want to keep the article.
 * In many case, in fact in most cases, it will hurt the chances of the article being saved, because most articles which go up for AFDs have ZERO hits, even with the correct search term:
 * Lil' Kim's Fifth Studio Album 0/0/0
 * S. V. Torke 0/0/0
 * Brad Maglinger 0/0/0
 * Orchidea Keresztes 0/0/0
 * Girlicious Sophmore Album 0/0/0
 * Ikip (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(still adding this to show I've cottoned on!)::Hold on, isn't this what we have already? See Articles for deletion/Wayne Herschel -- Clicking on Google Books gave 43 hits, only 2 of which were relevant. I see I misunderstood, you mean a search for the exact phrase. Why are we discussing this if it exists? Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This conversation is getting bizarre. I will close it. Ikip (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Template proposal
Since probably no one visits Template talk:Afd top, I am leaving a note here. Please participate in the discussion at Template talk:Afd top. Thanks! (Do not reply below.) -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Change to closed discussions making life harder
Has anyone other than me looked at some per-day pages with lots of closed discussions on them since the abovementioned change was enacted? Personally, I'm finding this change to have vastly increased the work involved in looking at closed discussions via per-day pages. Take Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 29 for example. It now requires 79 individual mouse actions to see what the outcomes were from discussions, rather than simply scrolling down the page as would have been the case with the template as it used to stand. Uncle G (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems to be a change for the worse as the contents and body are now too similar. How do we revert this? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you guys. this is not a good change, though I understand the intention. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion for a temporary client-side workaround: all collapse boxes can be forced open by disabling JavaScript on one's browser. Flatscan (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all WWW browsers are capable of disabling Javascript on the fly, saddeningly enough. A better temporary workaround is to revert Template:afd top (and of course Template:afd bottom too) to the status quo ante. Uncle G (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the change does make the life much harder. There exists a script to hide those AFDs for people who find the page too long to navigate, so there is no point in collapsing them all... Regards  So Why  13:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - can someone revert this to the status quo? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean the status quo ante?
 * <makes "gun crew come here" hand motion.> --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer it the "new" way. Could there be some programmatic workaround to give people who want to see everything the option to do so, while collapsing things for those not interested in such? Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony is that the old way, that still exists as a mechanism, provided exactly that choice. The default is to show closed discussions, but one can choose to hide them via the CSS class. Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the new way is awful. However, as Jclemens suggests, allowing people to choose would be the best option.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is defintely not an improvement and is causing most of todays's AFD's to be swallowed up within one of the collapsed entries. Let's go back to how it was before, please.--Michig (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @Uncle G and Jclemens: I can add parameters to display the result quite easily, so there is no need to worry about that. It'll just take a bit of work from Mr.Z-man to modify his script. @Michig: That's because someone forgot to add afdb at the bottom. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you building this Rube Goldberg mechanism in the first place? I pointed out at Template talk:Afd top and I point out again, here:  We already had a mechanism for people to collapse or hide closed discussions if they want to do that.  We've had this mechanism for years.  (You are not the first person to want to do this, after all.)  What you've done is add a second mechanism on top of that, that doesn't provide even as much functionality as the first, that only serves to make things more difficult, with lots more mouse actions required to view old discussions, and that you're now proposing to make even more complex for closing administrators to use with extra template parameters that they have to learn.  Why build this at all?  Why not just use the mechanism that was already there?  Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G: I think the way it is makes for unnecessary instruction creep. Not only that, but in my over four years at Wikipedia, I have never once learned that you could do that. So the for the old way, 1) collapsing instructions are too hard to find; 2) even if instructions are readily available, many people will not understand them. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep? What instruction creep?  There's no instruction creep, in part because the process has existed for years (so there's no "creep") and in part because no instructions are required (so this isn't even about "instructions" in the first place).  Even if there were instruction creep, you are combatting it by adding steps, with extra template parameters that people have to learn, and hundreds of extra actions required in order to view what heretofore was plainly visible without any extra work at all.  That's combatting instruction creep?  You've built a second, bad, mechanism on top of an existing, cleaner and more functional, mechanism that was already there all along.  How is that it a good thing?  You know what the original mechanism is, now.  Why not just use it?  Uncle G (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "No instructions are required"? Then how come I still do not know how to do it? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You tell us. The &lt;div&gt;s around closed discussions are marked with a CSS class.  One can alter the formatting of everything tagged with that class using your user style sheet &mdash; a general mechanism that applies to everything marked with such classes, from article notices to parts of the user interface, not just to this template.  The general mechanism is widely documented, in m:Help:User style for starters, and it doesn't take much imagination to apply it to the " " class with one's style sheet. What, exactly, are you finding so difficult about this?  You've managed to do it long since for other things, according to User:King of Hearts/monobook.css.  Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly approve of the recent change, which makes my life hugely easier by collapsing closed discussions without me having to muck around with CSS (whatever that is)—an operation for which I lack the technical skill, inclination or patience. I urge that it remain as currently implemented, please.— S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I visit AfD once in a blue moon, so I've only encountered this today. I truly hope the collapsing can be removed. It's not because I care about closed debates being visible or invisible - I could not possibly care less about that. However, collapsed sections break the TOC, and I do care about that. Lots of collapsed sections make the TOC effectively unusable; you have to fumble around looking for a heading that will maybe work and maybe be close to what you want. That is very, very bad. Please change this. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please add me to the list of people who think this is a terrible idea and would like it rolled back to the way it was. Hiding T 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I thought it was an excellent idea. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rolled back
Okay, I rolled the template back to not collapsing per the above discussion. What do we do about those instances which already subst the collapsed format, ignore them or roll them back? Hiding T 09:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance that we would keep the collapsing templates and fix the TOC problems at the same time? I find the collapsed debates really convenient - when searching the debates that are still running, the closed ones just make it harder to find them. An option would also be to have a bot that would move the closed debates to the bottom of the page or similar. --Tone 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the third time in this discussion: If you want that closed debates collapsed, then use the mechanism that is already there for that very purpose, and has been there all along.  It really isn't as if you are the first persons to have ever wanted this.  We already have a mechanism for doing this, and we don't need a second, problematic and less versatile, one on top of it. And, like King of Hearts above, the existence of User:Tonei/monobook.css tells us that you already know of this general mechanism, and have been using it since 2006.  Just make use of it for this CSS class. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tonei is another user. But anyway, I get it now, it's a user setting, not a general implementation. --Tone 11:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I always vote keep
I do, if I vote at all. What is it that polarizes us so? It's hard to remember, but I think someone nominated something for AfD that I had worked on, and since then, I look for articles to save. AfDs always have the usual suspects, so I guess the delete side saw something kept that shouldn't have been kept early in their careers, and so they always vote delete. There's probably some psychology article that explains this phenomenon. Basically, someone threatens a thing you like (an article/all of WP?) and you start self identifying. Or something. I don't know. Anyone know of the psych article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are looking for an article that has yet to be written. But the rudiments are here. Protonk (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More of my comments favour deletion than don't, I suspect, but that's because I only tend to comment when the discussion isn't tending my way or I feel particularly strongly. By and large, the articles I think ought to be kept already have a large number of comments favouring that position by the time I find them. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My impression is that it's a matter of personality. I'm something of a packrat and contrarian and so look for reasons to keep things.  I don't usually bother to vote delete for the stuff that doesn't belong because there seem to be more than enough others to take care of that.  Those others, who prefer voting delete, seem to be grumpy old men.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow......none of that sounds the least bit bitter, snide or lacking in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit I see quite a few editors who have tendency to express either all delete opinions or always say Keep.  However, if you look at the vast majority of the editors, that visit AFD on a regular bases, you will find most give a balanced opinion and will express a delete opinion as quickly as a Keep, given a reasonable argument.  Are mistakes made of course, we all make them.  What I find troubling is in the nomination.  Quite a few are nominated without looking at before.  That I believe is a more pressing problem. ShoesssS Talk 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And how is saying "I always vote keep" any different than someone saying "I always vote delete"? I bet if someone said "I always vote delete", some of these same editors would be climbing all over them, telling them how wrong that is and that each nom should be looked at on its own merit. But when the opposite view is expressed, they just cheerlead with remarks about the reproduction of inequality and testosterone levels. What's next? Mother jokes? Do you honestly expect me to believe that were these things being said about "inclusionists" that they'd find it perfectly acceptable discourse? I don't buy that for a second. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I must confess I have a tendency to get involved in what I consider perverse keeps - where people are just voting keep for reasons that have nothing to do with sources "This has been nominated before and therefore must be notable" or where people are simply not reading the source. One article I got involved in was sourced entirely with press releases but people were voting keep because of social-political afflictions. On the other hand, when articles like Watford Gap services are up for AFD, I don't bother with the debate and just get straight to adding sources. Then if need be, I'd connect people who had already voted and ask them to reconsider on the basis of the improved article. AFD is the best way to delete an article, the best keep is to edit the article to add sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What to do with a mis-named nomination.
There's a discussion going on now, Articles for deletion/Eurasian Adam (2nd nomination) which was mis-named. As far as I can tell, it's not the 2nd nomination, it's the 1st. What's the best thing to do here? Is it worth the disruption/effort to rename it properly? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note. Probably not worth the bother to rename the AfD. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it any more bother than a simple page move? I mean, how many links are there to fix? Two? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A half dozen. I'm doing it presently.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Yasgur AfD nomination withdrawn
I've withdrawn the Sam Yasgur AfD nomination, after finding information that tends to negate my initial rationale. I'd appreciate it if an administrator would kindly close out this AfD as "withdrawn." Thanks, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been done. Please note that AfDs may only be kept early if there are no outstanding delete 'votes'.  There were none in this case, but it is good to keep in mind for the future. Protonk (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also note that, in cases like those Protonk describes, you can feel free to make the close yourself. Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll keep that in mind. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting featured/good/important content
Re: Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

I think deleting featured, good, and other content that was high-value at one time should be strongly discouraged until the article has been de-featured, de-GA'd, etc.

In cases where it's a no-brainer that the status should be yanked and the article should be deleted, go ahead and do the AFD but make it clear why the article no longer meets FA/GA/etc. criteria.

Comments? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, AfDing GAs or up is generally not a good idea, for the simple reason that they'll almost always WP:SNOW like crazy. If there isn't a line in the page discouraging it, there probably should be.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GA/FA aren't inherent protections against deletion, but there would have to be a seriously deficient FAC and a reasonably deficient GAN for an article which does not meet the inclusion criteria to be listed as a good article or a featured article. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect the reason against making this a hard rule is that there could be some circumstances where deletion would prevail, sucha s if it was found out a GA was mostly a copyvio or was a hoax. Also, important articles are less rigorously reviewed than FAs/GAs, so I could quite easily imagine an important article be deleted.  MBisanz  talk 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think a first natural step instead of AFDing articles that are GA or FA is to use their appropriate mechanics for their status review. (WP:GAR or WP:FAR). Let the editors have a chance to fix problems. If it doesn't get fixed, then its demoted and then if there's still no further improvements, AFD. --M ASEM  (t) 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the catch 22. If a process like FAR or GAR might fix the problems in the article, then deletion is prima facia inappropriate.  But if a GA or an Fa is taken to AfD without first going through one of the status review mechanisms, it will likely be kept.  I guess the best solution is to be extremely dubious of your own capacity to judge how broken an article is, and just work through the least impact processes first--that is effectively the essence of WP:BEFORE. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposed common sense rule Any GA or FA must be delisted before it is eligible for AfD. For GA, that's trivial and can be done by one editor, just like GAN approval. For FA, that's a more complicated and consensus-oriented process, just like FAC. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that we use common sense and do that or are you proposing that common sense suggests we add that to the deletion policy? And for the record, there is a process to delist good articles at WP:GAR and only in cases of obvious malfeasance can GA's be individually delisted. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Is it really necessary to create a "rule" for this? I mean, how often does it come up, and when it does, would a "rule" really make things better? (I put "rule" in quotes because I don't believe that Wikipedia runs on "rules".) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably doesn't come up very often. But, if the article actually should be deleted, the AfD should reflect that, regardless of whether or not GAR or FAR is used first.  Requiring it seems a bit WP:BUREAUcratic to me.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why making this expectation explicit would be excessively bureaucratic. If there's an egregious, previously undetected issue (e.g., copyvio), IAR will apply.  I also don't see a reason why this can't be added to WP:BEFORE, which is ignored by a fair number of AfD nominators anyways. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If your problem is people avoiding rules (or in this case, a set of best practices), the solution is decidedly not continuing to add more to the rule in question. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People doing things "wrong" once isn't a problem. The point is to set expectations clearly that such is the normal process to be followed in normal cases.  Call it a guideline or behavioral expectation if you dislike calling it a "rule"--the funny thing here is I don't see anyone arguing over the expectation, just a lot of vague hand-waving about writing it down somewhere other than a talk page. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it whatever you like. And it's hilarious that you don't see people arguing with the expectation, because both me and Allen3 have.  It's duplicative, needlessly prescriptive, and would only be sparingly invoked (and in all cases where it would be invoked, it would be done so unnecessarily as many other points in BEFORE would have to be ignored in order to trigger this rule).  But it's all vague hand waving right? Protonk (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a semantic misunderstanding. People are advocating whether this should be an expectation/rule/guideline or not, but NO ONE is actually advocating rejection of the idea.  That is, I've heard no one say "FAs should be as deletable as anything else--both for nomination and deletion consensus" and I would, in turn, find that positon hillarious.  If an FA represents the community's ideal, then there's no way the community should stand for the nomination for deletion of a currently listed FA. If that happens, then either AFD or FAC/FAR is horribly, horribly broken. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a semantic misunderstanding. The claim "FA/GA's are likely not to be deleted without first being delisted" is totally valid.  But the different claim "we should write a rule in order to enforce this" is totally baffling.  Why does this rule need to exist?  Have we made mistakes in the past for lack of guidance?  Is there some common community practice (like systematically delisting then deleting FA/GA content) that we need to write down?  I mean, we don't delete policy pages or mediawiki pages very often, but I don't really think we need guidance in BEFORE that says "please check if you are nominating the Main Page for deletion".  And frankly you need to make an affirmative case for more and more complicated guidance.  Eventually it stops being guidance and starts being clippy. Protonk (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fie! That is the foulest insult I have ever heard hurled at another editor on Wikipedia!  Godwin's law be damned, you skipped Nazis and accused me of becoming Microsoft Bob! :-) In all seriousness, I believe in codifying the community's collective consensus at any point in time where the issue arose, such that it can be intelligently referred to in the future.  It serves as a "checkpoint" for the people who come later, to understand that at such and such a time, this was what the community said.  Talk page archives give the whole situation, but are the epitome of TLDR.  Essays, guidelines, and the like are a great way to capture the decision--not so it can be ossified, but so it can be used as a starting point ("they said this 2 years ago... is this still a good precedent? Why or why not?") and that the amount of harm can be minimized when an experienced editor leaves: we may not be able to stop from losing their contributions, but at least we will have (hopefully?) captured their tribal knowledge. If throwing it in BEFORE is too pointless, why not instead put it in OUTCOMES or someplace else? Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did kinda step over the line, eh? It felt good to be bad.  Well, I think we are at the point in the debate where my continued stubbornness is more bothersome than a change the the guide would be.  If you really want to add a line, then go ahead.  Just don't make it as long as the one below. :) Protonk (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal appears unneeded for two reasons. First, a properly written article is its own best defense against deletion.  Any article that is justifiably a GA or FA, i.e. not promoted by the author's "buddy" for WP:ILIKEIT reasons, will by it's nature have enough verbiage and cited sources to prompt a WP:SNOWBALL Speedy keep of any nomination that does not contain a reasoned and well researched arguement for deletion.   Second, occasionally articles that deserve deletion yet could potentially achieve GA status are created. (e.g. Articles for deletion/Letchworth Corset Riot)  On the rare occasion that such articles are discovered this proposed rule just stands in the way of improving the encyclopedia and would thus be overruled by WP:IAR.  Overall the end result of the "rule" being implemented is there would be no measurable new protection to existing high quality content but serial copyright violators and high-end hoaxers would gain a new obstacle to block people from removing non-encyclopedic content. --Allen3 talk 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If "serial copyright violators and high-end hoaxers" can get to FA, we have far bigger problems than reminding people to use IAR when it makes sense. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some featured articles have been there for a long time without adequate review. It's off-topic for Talk:AfD, but I think FA and similar statuses should automatically expire every year or two if there is no FA-review.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Scott Doe was speedy kept for simply being a GA. WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30 relisted it as WP:Articles for deletion/Scott Doe (3rd nomination) with closing admin's agreement. There was a well-supported position at the DRV that the article should be GAR'd and/or that GA status is not an automatic pass at AfD. The article was kept after the player started in the new season, satisfying WP:ATHLETE. It looks like an editor followed up on the GAR, but the article was not demoted. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Concrete proposal: Add text to end of Before nominating an article for deletion
Proposed text to add to the end of WP:AFD: "If an article is currently Featured Content, a Good Article, part of a Good Topic, or are otherwise recognized content, it should not be deleted without careful thought and a very good reason why deletion is preferable to improving the article. Good reasons to delete include that if the article were written today as a new article it would be eligible for speedy deletion e.g. discovered to be a hoax, or that taking the article through de-listing prior to bringing it to AFD would be a waste of time as the article obviously fails current listing requirements and would require a major re-write to meet them. In any case, if a featured or good article is nominated for deletion, advertise it in the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects and make reasonable attempts to notify the principal authors.  Also, make it very clear in the AfD that the article has a featured or other recognized status, and be very clear why deletion is appropriate. For multi-article deletions where at least one article is at a recognized status, strongly consider listing that article separately."

Look at this after I wrote it, I see that it's a bit wordy. If you can re-write it without removing any of the meaning, I'm open to suggestions. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it, for the most part. I do suggest changing "or that taking the article through de-listing prior to bringing it to AFD would be a waste of time as the article obviously fails current listing requirements and would require a major re-write to meet them", as merely failing the listing requirement doesn't mean it should be deleted.  I also note that G3, the speedy criterion which applies to hoaxes, only applies to extremely blatant ones; therefore, one that made it to GA or FA isn't blatant enough.  Changing "hoax" to "copyright violation", and linking G12, would be better.  With a few changes, I get something like this:
 * If an article is currently Featured Content, a Good Article, part of a Good Topic, or are otherwise recognized content, it should not be deleted without careful thought and a very good reason why deletion is preferable to improving the article. Good reasons to delete include that the article is eligible for speedy deletion (e.g. discovered to be a copyright violation) or has been discovered to be a hoax.  In any case, if a featured or good article is nominated for deletion, advertise it in the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects and make reasonable attempts to notify the principal authors.  Also, make it very clear in the AfD that the article has a featured or other recognized status, be very clear why deletion is appropriate, and show clearly that taking the article through de-listing prior to bringing it to AFD would be a waste of time as the article obviously fails current listing requirements.  For multi-article deletions where at least one article is at a recognized status, strongly consider listing that article separately.
 * Still long, but with a few things clearer, I believe. Personally, I like it long, since it helps drive home the idea that such nominations usually aren't useful.  Cheers, everyone.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 04:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If a featured article needs to be deleted, then it will be for some reason that is screamingly apparent (one big copyvio, for example), and nobody will need to appeal to a written rule. If a featured article is nominated for deletion, but should not be deleted, then that will be screamingly apparent, and the nomination will be speedy-closed per SNOW (the idea, not the page), without having to appeal to any written rule. If it is somehow a borderline case, then whatever rule we attempt to write down won't address it, and it will have to be considered on merits, again without appealing to a written rule. In none of these cases will a written rule be necessary. That said, it's not actively harmful either, except insofar as it encourages the superstition that Wikipedia runs on written rules, and that things have to be written down in order for us to properly do them. I think that superstition is pernicious and actively harmful, but I know that others disagree. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations, like WP:BLP violations, must be removed or reverted immediately. If by some chance an article got to FA status and its current version is a copyvio, the right thing to do is either excise the copyvio or roll it back to the last legal version.  If all versions since it reached FA status were copyvio then we can roll it back to its last legal version and invoke WP:IAR to immediately strip it of its featured status.  If there is no legal version to roll back to, either replace the article with a stub or better yet, a well-written article, or speedy delete it. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my comments above, I won't oppose this, but that is a hell of a lot of text for a situation that A: isn't going to happen all that often and B: will probably be resolved without looking at the 'policy' first. Also, on a funny note, I read the section title as a policy to require that I append some arbitrary string of text to WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion (sort of like scrolling to the end of a click through EULA before the "I accept" button lights up. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't any article be given equal treatment to FA/GA articles, in terms of making certain that it meets deletion criteria prior to nominating it? Per Protonk above, frivolous nominations of FA/GA articles for nominations seems to be a vanishingly small problem, and the information being proposed here is hardly novel or cryptic; it ought to be common-sense.  Smells like WP:CREEP to me.  Not really worth opposing, but is it really worth bothering with in the first place? <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, probably not. Chances are good the discussion'll be enough, as long as we remember it.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Five-handed Euchre (Bid)
This article has already been listed in Wikipedia as Five-Handed Euchre, which should already have been merged with Euchre variations. Let's just use some good sense here people. Thanks for your understanding. Krenakarore (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Five-handed Euchre (Bid) doesn't exist, nor does an alternate spelling/capitalization, so I am unsure what you are talking about. Could you clarify?  Also, this does not sound like an issue you'd need an AfD for, so you might want to consider just handling it editorially.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Five-Handed Euchre (Bid) and Articles for deletion/Five-Handed Euchre (Bid), for your consideration. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Five-Handed Euchre (Bid) is the article in question. It was brought to my attention after I created the AFD that a merge would be more appropriate, but I am unsure as how to do that as of yet.  ArcAngel (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's WP:PM for requesting mergers (though it appears to have a backlog at the moment). There are also the mergeto and mergefrom tags.  Or, you can always just do it yourself.  As for the AfD, it appears that having you withdraw the nom and going ahead with the merge would be the simplest solution.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 14:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll help with the merge tags if discussion is needed, but I don't understand the articles after a quick skim. Feel free to contact me directly if desired. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowball AFD closings
'''The majority of AfD discussions are expected to run for at least seven days. In some cases a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.'''

Not sure if it's an omission. Shouldn't WP:SNOW or/and if there is a very clear consensus be also included in this paragraph - afd discussions that can be closed before the seven day (+12/-12 hours depending on time zones) period. WP:SNOW is not a WP:CSD or Speedy Keep criteria even though many WP:SNOW discussions (or afd discussions with clear consensus) are closed well before that by several.

I'm saying this because User:Otterathome criticized my WP:SNOW (and some clear consensus) closings of discussions that are five or six days old (even though the outcome would have likely never change or it is unanimus for one option)

Otterhome had suggesting me to extend the WP:CSD criteria (I guess to include WP:SNOW). JForget 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are asking.  Do you want SNOW added to that blurb? Protonk (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct. JForget  19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I would prefer we didn't for two reasons.  The first reason I disagree with but has some consensus anyway.  Namely, SNOW closes are discouraged in current practice.  The second reason is that SNOW isn't really a policy or a process, it is the outcome of an editing philosophy.  The 'reason' a SNOW close ends a debate is not because of WP:SNOW but because the outcome was a foregone conclusion (a very strong condition that sometimes trips people up).  People confuse SNOW with lopsided vote totals or rush to SNOW close debates out of some fear that good edits will be consumed by bad debate.  Neither of those two are particularly strong justifications to make an end-run around the deletion process.  In my opinion SNOW closes should be rare and undertaken at the hazard of the closer.  Those two conditions suggest that we not add a clause to the deletion policy. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CSD is for deletions that do not require discussion. WP:SNOW is about closing discussion where seen fit. So no. I also think Otterathome meant something entirely different. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's best to ask Otterathome for clarification on what was meant, as we all seem to have different interpretations. My take on his/her comment was that if one felt AfDs didn't need to run for 7 days, CSD should be expanded so that the articles could be speedied in the first place, never ending up at AfD. Personally, I feel SNOW is not for lopsided !votes, but for rare cases where it's blindingly obvious that the article doesn't belong at AfD, such as nominating Human for deletion because there are no sources independent of the subject. (And I have no problem with early closes when the article has already been speedily deleted or the nom withdrawn with no delete !votes.) Otherwise, the benefits of following the process (keeping people from feeling disenfranchised, making it seem like there is some organized, fair process, etc) outweigh the possible benefits of closing a day or two early.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I always understood WP:SNOW as a particular application of WP:IAR. It makes little sense to me to make a speedy criterion. Rd232 talk 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For some time I have been tempted to write an essay on WP:SNOW closes giving advice on when and when not to do it. Basically there's more to it then just a whole bunch of editors quickly saying "keep" or "delete". Here's what I said about snow "keeps" in an earlier discussion...

A discussion may be closed early under WP:SNOW in the following circumstances.

1. It would be obvious to a reasonable person that the article is not going to be deleted such as obviously notable subjects (Microsoft, George W Bush, etc.) or a featured article. However, some such closes may be covered under WP:SK criterion 2 as bad faith nominations.

2. The nominator's rationale has clearly been impeached. An example would be a nomination claiming that a subject fails WP:ATHLETE and unambiguous evidence is presented that demonstrates that he passes it.

3. A verifiable subject falls under WP:OUTCOMES and there's no additional arguments for deletion. Example, high schools and towns.

For early delete closes outside of WP:CSD I can only think of 1 scenario right off hand. It quickly becomes apparent that the subject is completely unverifiable. A recent example is this AFD. However, blatant hoaxes may be covered under CSD G3. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Having to" defend articles against deletion
I've run into this strange allegation a few times lately. Some editors claim that they would be better able to improve articles if they didn't have to defend them against deletion. I find this bizarre, because the easiest way to defend an article against deletion is to just improve it, ignoring any deletion discussions that may be going on. At the most, a one-line, "I'm adding sources" in an AFD is all the participation that's required.

I wonder, is there a way to let people know that, even if an article is nominated for deletion, they're under no practical (or any other kind of) obligation to argue in its defense. If an article is deleted while someone is trying to improve it, then I, or any other like minded administrator, would be more than happy to recover any deleted content and userfy it for anyone who wants to improve it.

I don't know why inclusionsists believe that winning arguments in AFD discussions is a productive use of their time. Does this make sense? What would be a good way to let people know about this? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC) This is a special case of a larger problem, where people think that winning arguments against other editors is practical and useful, when it's actually almost always a waste of time.
 * (refactored out, not productive or on main point)
 * Some of us at the WP:Article Rescue Squadron added the following to MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext:
 * You can also start your new article at Special:MyPage/Terhrt. You can develop the article, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.
 * Ikip (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So.... how are you saying I can make available the service I'm offering? I don't disagree with anything you say here. I'm simply saying that, during the week of AFD, those who would save an article are wasting their time arguing with deletionists who will not be convinced by arguments. AFD does not stop anyone from editing, unless they believe that the article is somehow locked while up for discussion. It's not. What I'm offering is to undelete articles for those who would improve them. Are you against this offer? I understand that you're frustrated, but I don't see how your post is a reply to what I actually said. We can both use bold text, see, but can you respond to the content I'm presenting? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a reply not to your main point, but to minor ones. sorry. I refactored my comments repeatedly. You can use my template, which I use all the time. User:Ikip/AFD. Ikip (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Now I'm included in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, which I did not previously know about. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another proven tactic which I want to expand, either by my self or with others.  Patrol brand new AFDs. Message the author of the AFD that there are several options other than AFD available. There is userfy, there is merge, there is redirect. If they agree, close the AFD.  I have done this maybe 6 times in the past week, every editor has agreed. It is a win win in many respects.  No AFD, No admin who has to relist AFD, no drama, and you teach the nominator new tools to avoid AFD. Ikip (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Something I just thought of. Add a statement at the top of all AFDs: All articles which are deleted can be userfied by request by admin. That said, this idea is so practical, I bet no one will agree.  Ikip (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally this would be automated, as part of the AFD template we use to create AFD discussion pages. I'll have to look into this; I don't imagine that's something that can easily be tweaked without... heavy discussion, let's call it. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Google news was recently added, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_55. Ikip (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But why bother improving when you can just shout "I'm sure sources exist", "clearly notable according to the sources I haven't read". You add multiple reliable sources to an article and the AFD is over - somehow this mysterious process is too hard for some people. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Like my refactored out comments, this does not answer GTBacchus's main question. He is looking for suggestions, just in a round about way :). Ikip (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the concise-est tool in the shed, it's true. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What if there were some sort of an 'AFD reset' button if someone has changed a certain percentage of an article? Say, if, after 7 days, an article had gone from 1 RS to 12, or a 40% expansion, or a 50% reduction... Any of these sorts of major efforts might be worth giving the editor(s) making such changes a right to declare an "AFD reset", and the AfD is started anew--the nom gets a chance to modify or withdraw the nomination, the !voters (all of them) are invited to comment on the now-reset AfD, and NOTHING is kept "live" from the previous discussion.  It's a pretty radical idea, but when the article has radically changed between listing and closing, many of the early AfD !votes are simply irrelevant to the article as it has been improved. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be bold. Try it. When an article has changed drastically, collapse the old discussion, relist the AfD, and see what happens. If you're reverted, don't revert back but discuss. Don't allow anyone to tell you that you're subject to rules - our "rules" are simply records of what has been a good idea at some time in the past. Let us know how it works out. If it really is a good idea, it will become practice, and eventually someone will rewrite a policy or guideline to reflect that. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Say, if, after 7 days, an article had gone from 1 RS to 12" Really great idea. Problem is that what is a RS? There will be arguments about what a RS is and is not. I guess it is up to the closing admin? Ikip (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then I hope the closing admin is careful enough to take that into consideration, and can do the relevant history checking versus votes. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When I change an article at Afd quite a bit, I leave a comment at the AfD, both for the closing admin and the previous !voters. That way someone can more easily tell that the comments before a certain time don't necessarily apply to the current version. The closing admin never seems to have a problem understanding that.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it would be nice if every admin always did that, but I think a lot of (formal or informal) article rescuers are afraid that admins will just count noses, without looking at the article's evolution during the process. I can think of a few times where I invested a good bit of effort in an article, only to have the closing admin not disregard the !votes that were irrelevant to the article at the time of close.  Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Buffyverse_objects is one case that sticks in my mind. (For reference, these are the changes made during the deletion discussion)  As long as admins are going to close AfD's in such a manner, any rescuer risks their efforts being deleted. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as admins close AfDs in such a manner, they shouldn't be closing AfDs. The solution is not to adapt to, and thus enable, such irresponsible admin behavior. The solution is to ask someone like myself to undelete the content for you, and then point out to the closing admin that they screwed up. I've got your back in this matter - scout's honor. There is no "risk", because I will undelete for you, unless you just start filling your user-space with stubs that you never actually bother to improve. If you're really an article rescuer operating with any kind of reasonable standards, then stop arguing with deletionists who won't listen, and let me (and other like-minded admins) help you instead. We're not here to argue on the Internet, so don't give in. Don't let unreasonable deletionists dictate the terms of engagement. This is also, of course, why DRV exists. Closes that are based on disregarding the actual state of the article are simply wrong. That's not something we need to tolerate at all. Again, I've got your back. So do lots of other admins. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is also why WP:REFUND was started, as a low drama way of enabling deleted articles to be userfied for improvement or reversing bad speedies. (However, most of the admins who hang out at REFUND will come down hard on people who use it to circumvent process.)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the particular AfD Jclemens has mentioned there was substantial discussion after the improvement, so it is incorrect to assert that it hadn't been taken into account. For what it's worth, I'm surprised that it wasn't closed as no consensus (based on the general way these fictional discussions go, rather than my personal preferences about the matter!) but it didn't seem to be that the admin had ignored the improvements, and the close was within the grounds of admin discretion. Quantpole (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, in my experience, DRV is even more slanted towards deletion than regular AfDs. Editors who support deletion seem to be more prevalent there. Taking a deleted article to DRV is a real fear that I have, almost a pointless exercise. In addition, you have to remember, if an article is undeleted, there is a stigma attached, if it goes up for deletion again, editors can argue, "this article was deleted before", and the nominator almost always points this out. Ikip (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Popcorn break - Do admins look at articles up for deletion?

 * I cannot remember who, but I recall at least one admin telling me that he does not look at the articles under discussion when he closes AfDs, but only the discussion. So, if we don't also argue in the AfDs, the closing admin might close based solely on uninformed comments in the AfD rather than the actual reality of the article.  Just today even an admin commented in a fiction related AfD that an article "currently stands as entirely in-universe description", which was blatantly false as the article has sourced out of universe context on Development and Reception.  So, if the admin only goes by the discussion rather than the factual reality of the article (i.e. if I or no one else pointed out that such claims to delete are not true) we could end up with it being deleted on false or misleading grounds.  Believe me, I would much rather build articles than deletion discussions as I can never get why we are somehow better off having some AfD that is of interest to God knows who than articles that are relevant to some but not others. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that these arguments are a waste of time. Admins who close AfDs by nose-count need to be stopped. I will help you stop them, if you bring it to my attention. It's unacceptable; someone doing that should not have the mop. If you improve the article, indicate (once) in the discussion that you've improved it, and then your improvements are disregarded by the closing admin, then come get me, or another of the admins who has placed themselves in this category. Arguing will not convince deletionists, and your time is still better spent working on the article. Let's not capitulate to the idea that admins will close discussions pathologically. That would enable them, and you'd be shooting yourself directly in the foot. Let's stop them instead. This is important, no? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your and Jclemens examples just go to show why we need a process to give constructive admin criticism, followed by trout slapping as needed, followed by de-sysopping as needed. Unfortunately, as it currently stands an admin can make a whole lot of bad deletions without much consequence, and can ignore anyone who brings it up. :(


 * But would an AfD reset button solve this? Or would these same admins ignore that, too?-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it hid (archived?) the past discussion and started anew? Then the path of least resistance is to simply look at the post-reset discussion.  If any admin is going to go to serious lengths to reach a decision not based on the current content of the article, that becomes less an issue of laziness (or at most negligence), and more of an issue of actually... well, I don't know what to call it.  Prejudicially closing an AfD? Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I had my AfD !vote hidden and I still felt it was applicable after the changes to the article, I'd be mighty peeved. I'll bet we'd see a lot of those AfDs at DRV or renominated, especially when the AfD reset button gets used a bit overenthusiastically (not by you, but by people who think the AfD isn't going their way.) How can we guard against abusive use of the reset button? -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my biggest concern as well. I think we'd need a concrete and tough yet attainable set of criteria...  If I'm going to make up some off the top of my head...
 * References to reliable sources doubled or +5, whichever threshold is higher, if the concern is lack of sourcing or notability.
 * 50% of text changed--added, removed, or altered--in the direction suggested by the nomination. That is, if it's "fancruft" or "NOT#PLOT" and someone rewrites it downward, that would count, while expansion would not.
 * There would be plenty of other nomination reasons that wouldn't have any applicable criterion. For example, if there's an assertion that something is a POV fork, it pretty much either is or is not. There's not a whole lot of middle ground on a number of things, and there's not any clear way I can see that good faith editing can significantly alter the article out from under the nomination base.
 * At any rate, I'm not convinced the idea is workable. I think the idea of "article purgatory" I brought up a few months back has a better chance of being workable. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention adding reliable sources -- arguments over which sources are reliable are exactly what I thought might land these AfDs at DRV. :) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Some admins don't look at the article because GOD HELP THEM if they see an article they thought should be deleted which had consensus to be kept (or what could be argued as consensus) and deleted it out of some personal consideration. I try to look at articles for improvement before I close them while avoiding looking for 'reasons to delete', but it is hard. It's often easier just to avoid looking at the article and claim justice is blind then hear the endless complaints from partisans if they intimate they have an opinion about content. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible that A Nobody is referring to me, since I have said this a few times. The point is that, in the vast majority of cases, an admin should not look at an article.  AfDs are a discussion to determine a consensus, and in 99% of cases the AfD is about arguing whether one set of criteria apply or another, and not about improved articles.  Admins examining an article to see if "the consensus is valid" would be madness as the admin could just substitute their own views for the discussion.  The only exceptions I apply are when there is a specific statement in the AfD that says something along the lines of "I added so-and-so sources to address the concerns above" and there are no subsequent delete comments - then I quickly look to make sure the additions took place, and weigh the arguments accordingly.  But either you think AfD is a discussion to determine consensus, or you think admins should decide on their own volition with advisement from the AfD.  You cannot have both, and the latter is an invitation to greater inconsistency than you can imagine. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally I check the sourcing on articles up for deletion in case some reliable souricng has crept in that hasn't been factored into the discussion. Articles can then be kept of relisted rather then deleted but I do otherwise agree that the discussion is the thing that the closing admin needs to evaluate not the article itself. Spartaz Humbug! 11:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hope that a closing admin looks at the article closely enough to determine whether the arguments in the AfD actually apply to it. I disagree with the dichotomy presented by Fritzpoll above. I think that admins do something in between judging based on their own criteria and purely evaluating the discussion. How can we judge strength of arguments if we can't hold those arguments up against reality as a measuring-stick? How can we evaluate claims that the article does or does not satisfy certain criteria without looking at the article, and finding out which claims are factual and relevant? If we knew that everyone opining in an AfD shared a common understanding of policy, that would be one thing, but we can't guarantee that. We need to be able to discount arguments that make no sense, and one way of making no sense is to be unrelated to the actual article. If nobody has pointed out such a non-relation in the discussion, that doesn't mean the closing admin should blind to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But we can't. Policy and, more importantly, community expectations are that we close according to the consensus within the discussion.  Your comments are why it is so vital that people explain why the article (does not) conform(s) to a particular principle/policy/guideline, and why we tend to weigh comments such as "Delete - just not notable" less than a detailed rationale.  It is not the job of an admin to second-guess the community discussion - that the quality of some discussions' contributions are weaker is irrelevant.  If an admin believes that a key argument is missing from the discussion, there is nothing to prevent them from participating in the debate and then letting another admin close it.  But, as S Marshall would say, an admin is a janitor - we examine consensus, but we don't decide on behalf of others what the fate of articles should be. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're drawing a sharp distinction where I'm not. I don't argue that we "decide on behalf of others what the fate of articles should be." I'm simply saying that we weigh the arguments, not in vacuum, but by placing them in the context of reality as we're able to observe it. In my experience (closing many deletion discussions and many more move requests), this has been a successful approach, so I have a hard time accepting that "policy and community expectations" are entirely at odds with it. Note: I am not taking a position contrary to yours. I'm taking a nuanced position in between yours and its contrary. I agree that it's vital that people explain their positions. However, in the event that they don't, there is no suicide pact in place that we're somehow helpless to fill in the details, or to note when the details simply aren't there. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible (nay, probable) that I'm misreading what you're saying - but that is the curse of text. I too have closed many AfDs, and have found that the more independent my judgement appears (i.e. how much it appears I have looked beyond the discussion), the more likely I'm taken to DRV.  I don't think I'm reacting against your stance, so much as the apparent notion that admins should read the articles to determine the "validity" of the arguments - weighting arguments is fine and necessary, but if noone refers to improvements made to an article during the AfD then it can hardly be surprising that the improvements are not taken into account - as an admin, I do kind of assume that people commenting have read the article before they make their statement.  Doubtless this is not the view you are supporting, but it is the one I'm reacting against from further up this page.
 * I do not, incidentally, condone the massive arguments that take place within AfDs and agree that the focus should be on content. A simple step following an improvement would simply be to note the improvement in the AfD and how it addresses the concerns made in the nomination and subsequent statements.  Then the improvements can be re-assessed by everyone, including the closing admin.  For editors like Ikip and A Nobody who seem to prefer content improvement, this is my most earnest recommendation Fritzpoll (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that a closing admin would look beyond the discussion, except to verify that the discussion is, in fact, about the article under consideration. Sometimes it's not. I don't assume that everyone weighing in at AFD has read the most current version of the article, especially if it has changed during the week of discussion. It is often the case that people leave an opinion and then never check back. If the first 19 votes refer to an unreferenced stub, and then at the end of the week, someone expands the article and adds sources, and then there are 2 more votes that take that reality into consideration, then those 2 votes outweigh the previous 19. If you don't look at the article, you might not see that. You seem to allow for this in your second paragraph above. I would add that likelihood of being taken to DRV is not necessarily an indication that the close was bad. It is an indication that many people want AFD to be a nose-count. I think it's absolutely worth going to DRV every now and then to combat this idea.  In the vast majority of cases, the opinions registered in AFD do address the actual article, and do make sense. However, when I'm closing AFDs, I still check to see whether I'm looking at a minority case where that's not true. Doing so can save a trip to DRV (especially since DRV is seldom used to appeal "keep"s). -GTBacchus(talk) 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm increasingly of the opinion that we're not disagreeing at all. Different projections of the same viewpoint, perhaps. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fritzpoll, the problem with your approach is that not everything said in an AfD is correct. In addition to the issue of "has no RS" !votes which may have become invalidated by later addition of sources, there are also quite a few times when I've seen !votes that are outright incorrect--asserting that no sources can be found, when I can find some good ones easily, for instance. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And therein lays the nub, I weas recently subject to a hail of abuse and a fairly agressive DRV because I actually researched the sources on an article to explain the close to someone arguing about the findings. If admins get that kind of reaction by and large its going to discourage them from doing much more the count the numbers. Another editor recently likened me to hitler for what was admitedly a poor speedy close but no-one took any corrective action to protect me from the abuse so I'm afraid I'm not going to receptive to doing my own due diligence on AFD closes or stepping away from the obvious in the future. Spartaz Humbug! 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to add to what Spartaz says - if something is said that is wrong, why would noone else in the debate mention it? I'm not talking count the numbers, I'm just saying that I expect AfD to be treated as a discussion - if someone says something wrong, correct them, and I'll look into it, but I can't do the work in the place of the communal discussion. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good clarification. Sometimes, I feel like when I point out everything wrong with every !vote that's inaccurate, it just prompts the partisans (often the nom--almost never the drive-by !voters whose analysis I impeach) to contest my comments. At what point is a rebuttal enough? I presume you read "notes to closing admin" posts? Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why people drive recklessly, but I still look both ways before crossing a one-way street. I don't know why anyone would fail to mention important points in a debate, but since I know it happens, I do a little checking. That said, I don't close a lot of AfDs. I'm not sure to what extent move requests are similar, but if there's more than one point of view represented, I look into it. Maybe RM closes are more heavy-handed than AFD closes, but we don't get that many complaints. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That you continue to relate closing AfDs without doing your preferred level of due diligence to recklessness (or relating the converse to prudence in the face of recklessness) sends a signal to me that we may not be communicating well. It is perfectly fine to say that admins should do some basic level of due diligence for articles...however, the reality is that such insertions of a closing vote allow an admin to dominate a discussion rather than just close it.  there are a hundred AfDs I wish I could have closed with "The sources presented here don't relate in the slightest to the subject under discussion, so the deletes have it", but had I closed even 10% of those that way (even if I was correct about the sources) I would have been mired in unpleasant and acrimonious DRVs for weeks to months.  I understand your point.  And I understand your frustration.  It's messed up that articles get deleted even when good improvements have been made to the article itself but no comment has been left on the AfD.  My point is that there are too many negative incentives surrounding admin 'due diligence' for admins to engage in that behavior on the whole. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I haven't related "closing AfDs without doing my preferred level of due dilligence to recklessness". That would be strange. The comparison went like this: Making AfD comments without taking the actual state of the article into consideration is like driving recklessly; verifying that AfD comments have anything do with the article is like looking both ways. I'm not sure what you think I said. I understand about the negative incentives; I just disagree that the solution is to somehow capitulate to it. I don't think the solution is to ram our heads repeatedly into a wall, either. I think the solution is to come up with some creative way of pushing AfD culture in a more productive direction. Is that something you disagree with? Am I real out-of-line here? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, considering that I'm not frustrated... how do you understand my frustration? Or, were you talking to someone else? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you are wrong, necessarily. I'm saying that the attitude toward admin leeway at AfD provides a strong disincentive to do the things you say are necessary in anything but the most minimal fashion.  I don't think you are out of line.  I agree that AfD culture needs to be pushed and prodded a different direction, but I doubt it is going to happen.  Like folks are saying above, we don't actually disagree, we just don't think that ideals are properly applied the the current situation without taking into account the culture. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I'm just a bit more optimistic. I've seen Wikipedia indoctrinate a community in bits of culture that I never would have believed (they're spelled IAR) before I saw it. We just have to get creative, and then get persistent. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How can one meet the "rough consensus" expectations in WP:DGFA without looking at the article? The way we process PRODs takes us to the actual page to do the deletion.  Why should a contested deletion require any less?  I know the template allows deletion of articles straight from the AfD... maybe it shouldn't.  I know, I've used it before on things that were uncontested... but maybe that option should be eliminated to force admins to look at the article under deletion, even if just briefly. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * then I repeat my question from above. What happens when I find an article which is totally unsourced and unsourcable but attracts enough keep voters to more than meet the no consensus threshold?  How do I close that article as anything but keep or no consensus without being accused of adding my own opinion as some sort of 'super vote'? Protonk (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What... you'd rather overlook the article's deficiencies and keep the article? How does that help the encyclopedia?  If you delete an article that should be deleted, and you go ahead and delete it, and people complain about it, oh well.  They can listen to policy, or not, and take it to DRV, or not, and if they harass you too badly, they can be blocked.  Local consensus can only override policy if it actually improves the encyclopedia--that's right in WP:DGFA too.  Really, admins closing contentious AfDs need to have impeccable policy, good explanations, and a thick skin. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen. And also remember Protonk, no one is required to close an AfD. More than once I've been closing AfDs and come across one where there were no valid policy arguments, or lots of keep arguments along the lines of "The sources show notability" when they are all myspace and other primary sources. In those cases, I put my editor hat back on and add my !vote, letting someone else do the close. Maybe the closer will agree with me, maybe they won't. I can live with that.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ^What he said. Be Bold. Delete the $&*^*, and let 'em take it to DRV. Then beat 'em there. We can't let our culture be dictated by a mob. If we run out of thick-skinned admins... then it's back to the drawing board. :/ -GTBacchus(talk) 21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm really searching for where I wrote that I preferred that as an outcome. I don't, obviously.  Hence my being labeled as an extreme deletionist.  I'm trying to point out (probably inartfully) that there is a significant asymmetry in our expectations of due diligence.  I just wanted to make sure that was part of the conversation so long as we were going to be talking about changing culture and demanding more inspection of articles from admins. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest I frankly have no trust that my fellow admins will protect me if someone does decide to go after me - the extreme abuse I had over a recent speedy MFD close is a case in point and I'm afraid that while I accept it was a poor call on my part someone should have stepped in and blocked the editor concerned rather then various people telling them to cool it when they clearly weren't. I'm afraid that this kind of experience doesn't help me to assume good faith and support me to make policy based rather then numerical judgements even though otherwise I generally do have an excellent record of having my closes endorsed at DRV. Thick skins is fair enough and if I will choose to work predominately in deletion I should accept more then my fair share of grief but somewhere, somehow we need to have more courage to support admins whose closes get challenged. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartaz: "I frankly have no trust that my fellow admins will protect me if someone does decide to go after me". Try me. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of you may be old enough to remember "trust but verify". Yes, I would certainly hope the discussion would be complete and errors in reasoning or facts would be pointed out. But that relies on someone coming along after the error and before the close, noticing the error, and deciding the discussion would benefit by having it pointed out. In reality, that doesn't always happen in AfD debates, which is why I appreciate when admins double check.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and you said it in 3 words. Excellent. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion brings up several matters I'm interested in. First, to Spartaz, I would say that while you do generally close XfDs excellently, in the case you mention it was rather hard for others to support you. Had you snow-closed it once, I would have done so, but the fact is that you snow-closed it, you were reverted, and then you personally snow-closed the same discussion a second time rather than have an uninvolved admin do it; and the matter was then brought to DRV.  In the circumstances, it really was very difficult to speak out in your defence, because I felt it was the other side that needed defending.  So I'm sorry you took a few lumps over that, but I think expecting support from other admins for such an action is a little hopeful.  Put it down to experience.  Second, as a more general point, the admin closing the discussion is assessing the discussion rather than the article.  It probably is necessary to read the article, but the order in which these things are done is important: first you read the debate, then you think and decide what the consensus is.  Only then do you look at the article, and only because you need to be sure that all the !votes were made in good faith and based on a clear understanding of policy.  I would add that it is very rarely necessary to close a debate against consensus.  If, during a closing spree, you decide that in the case of one particular article, the consensus is wrong, one of the best options is to add your own, correct, !vote on the issue and leave it to another admin to close.  I think this is particularly important in debates where there has been little participation.  The benefit of doing this is that closing a debate against consensus can be a WP:BITE issue.  There are good reasons why we show new users that their contributions are not deleted unless there is a consensus or a clear speedy deletion criterion, because the bloke who writes an inappropriate article about their favourite garage band today might be the bloke who writes Judith Jesch next week—if not put off by a close they perceive as abusive.— S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  07:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Popcorn break 2 - defending articles in AfD

 * GTBacchus, thanks for inviting my thoughts since one of my comments on an AfD apparently helped spur this discussion. You wrote in part, "the easiest way to defend an article against deletion is to just improve it, ignoring any deletion discussions that may be going on."  I'm not sure I agree with that.  Now my experience with AfD is limited, but I'm not sure that every admin looks to see if an article is really improved (and some of the discussion above makes me think i'm not alone in this view).  People are lazy and time is finite - frankly, its easier to dig up a few good sources and plop the links into an AfD discussion than actually do the real work needed to integrate that information into the article (ideally someone should do both-that is the gold standard).  But an ill-advised AfD is the easiest thing of all to do - you take one half-assed blinders-on google search and a personal assessment of "this seems like crap", and off we go to AfD.  I spent some time fixing up an article last week that was nominated for AfD 12 minutes after it was created -- it didn't take me much time to know this was a worthy subject, and i actually improved the article as well as discussing it in the AfD.  But it still takes much more time to improve articles than to improperly send them to AfD.  I know some editors are loathe to edit an article they think will be deleted because they don't trust the AfD process to strike the balance of consensus where they believe it really is.  Now, I never really considered that an admin might be able to reinstate an article after its deleted; I think lots of people assume that once something is gone, its gone for good (unless there's some change in the status of the article subject to make it more notable).  Maybe the AfD template can be modified to reflect this option, though i wonder if it will really change behavior in AfD discussions.  I've wondered whether people who nominate AfDs should get a "rating" associated with them to see their success rate on AfDs, so you can see whose AfDs rarely reflect consensus, BUT having such a system would encourage those nominating AfDs to defend that at all costs, even after articles are improved (though maybe they could delete their AfD nomination in those cases to save their percentage)--Milowent (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In my early days here, I was a bit proud of my success rate at AfD. I even mentioned it in my question responses at my RFA, back when the mop was considered much less of a big deal than it is now. (I would never be made admin today.) At this time, I don't care about that, but I do care about finding some creative solution to the problems that many of us recognize in the AfD process. AfD seems to be frequented by deletionists who apply very strict standards, and who don't try to find sources before !voting "delete". This position sets up a dyad where anyone working on the article feels compelled to take the contrary position in order to "save" the article. The ensuing arguments very seldom lead to anybody's mind being changed, and I therefore see them as pointless. Why argue with someone who simply will not be convinced, no? One possible solution is for people to start articles in their own personal sandbox, and then move them to article-space when they're ready to survive a possible AfD. I don't know how to stop people from applying deletionist standards, so it seems to me that it would be more effective to treat those people as part of the terrain, and find a way to work around them.  Another possible solution that User:Fritzpoll proposed on my talk page last night (night for GMT-1, anyway), was to create a sort of article "purgatory" or "limbo", outside of the main encyclopedia, where articles can be improved without the threat of a 7-day deletion discussion deadline distracting (diligent and dedicated) editors from working on the article. That's what I see as the problem - AfD is a distraction, and I'm beginning to doubt that I can convince inclusionists to confidently ignore it. Oh well. This "limbo" idea is kind of like the personal sandbox solution, except that it collects articles in such a state to a central location. Perhaps an article "incubator" or "nursery" is a better metaphor (than one about various afterlives for different kind of dead sinners).  I dunno, does anything in there strike a chord with anyone? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A central issue in the DRV for WP:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination) was whether the closing admin was allowed to view the sources himself and discount recommendations based on them without anyone at the AfD explicitly pointing out weaknesses in specific sources. The redirect outcome was endorsed at DRV. This discussion was mentioned in this week's Signpost. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, we're on telly! -GTBacchus(talk) 12:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate GTBacchus's enthusiasm in bringing up this subject here. But I think this conversation is focusing on the problem after the fact. Above is a conversation on whether WP:BEFORE should become a policy, guideline, , which is getting mixed support. Currently, articles for deletion is the first step for many editors to clean up articles, instead of being the last. The current Articles for Deletions system is like arbcom being the first step in dispute resolution between editors. We have WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE but they have no teeth, and editors ignore them. Articles for deletion are confrontational by their very nature. When I have spent months on an article and I see that red tag on the top of the page, by an editor who never said one word to me before, my first reaction is red hot rage. After months of recruiting editors to the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, I know I am not alone. Asking editors to not fight for something they have poured their souls into for sometimes months on simply won't work, especially the way DRV is rigged and the way I have seen editors ruthlessly go after userfied pages. GTBacchus, I appreciate your willingness to help, but I think the only true solution is one at the beginning, not at the end. Ikip (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, I'm open to finding a solution at any end of the horse, be that front, middle, back, or somehow extra-dimensional. I don't think I'm asking editors not to fight for something. I think I'm asking editors to focus their efforts where they will make more difference. Trying to convince individual deletionists to change their mind doesn't seem to me to be a good strategy. I'm in favor of fighting the good fight, but I think it should be done as smartly as possible. I think there are strategies that haven't been explored very well, because of the perception that the AfD discussion is the be-all end-all venue where article's fates are decided. That doesn't have to be true. The "hot rage" you mention, I understand and appreciate, but I can't agree that something is the best solution, simply because it's motivated by a valid emotion. I'm looking for a creative solution—any new idea, or an old idea with new clothes on, or whatever might work. The problem I see with a lot of solutions being tossed around is that they involve somehow changing deletionists' minds, or convincing people not to nominate articles for AfD. I'm not sure that will happen, so it might be better to choose a different battle that could lead to the same result. Changing people's minds and attitudes through argument, legislation, or force of will just doesn't work very often. I don't know about what you mention: People "going after" userfied pages. I'm interested to hear more about that. Perhaps what is needed is some kind of more explicit cooperation between article "rescuers" and admins willing to retrieve deleted content (I've only just learned about and joined that category). Maybe WP:REFUND just needs to be souped up, or better staffed, or better advertised to potential rescuers. I consider this a brainstorm, and I'm open to hearing about anything that might make our lives better. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:REFUND is well staffed at the moment (most requests handled in just a few hours), but probably could be better advertised.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: "The problem I see with a lot of solutions being tossed around is that they involve somehow changing deletionists' minds, or convincing people not to nominate articles for AfD."
 * I think what you suggest with WP:REFUND is also the same, changing "editors who want to save articles" minds. Would this somehow be easier?  I would like to think so.
 * I think we all got to this point because of influential editors at the top creating rules, and a "company culture", which all editors must now abide by.
 * Some of my suggestions are at the very top of this page, before the many inevitable digressions on important, but off topic points.
 * I appreciate and applaud your valiant efforts, and I will support anything you suggest. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in the discussion taking shape at the bottom of my talk page just now. I agree that rescuers will be easier to get on board than deletionists. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (I'd say more, but I'm not really here right now; I'm studying.)


 * The discussion is about upgrading it to a guideline, not a policy (which you just claimed in an AfD it already way, please get your story straight). But anyway, could you give an example of an article where you "have spent months on an article and I see that red tag on the top of the page, by an editor who never said one word to me before,[...]"? Fram (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fram, thanks for the personal correction, again. Again I am flattered by the personal attention that you take in my comments, thanks for helping me "get my story straight". I would rather not share examples, thank you. I see your continued criticism of my comments, here and elsewhere, but what I am really interested in is your own proposals on this topic. Ikip (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When you are one of the central persons in discussions concerning deletions and so on, it would be useful if you could get some of the essential facts (like the difference between a policy, a guideline, and a recommendation) correct. Seeing you make the same mistake over and over again and making comments based on this misconception is not helping in any way. As for your examples: if you pretend that something has happened to you (an article you spent months on is sent to AfD without any prior indication of problems), then you should be prepared to give an example of this. Otherwise it is just empty rhetoric. Discussions should be based on reality, and if you insert mistakes and made-up situations into it, then you are distorting the discussion. But it's fairly easy to stop me criticizing: don't make such mistakes. Fram (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fram, I would take issue with the idea that it matters one bit whether something is a "policy" or a "guideline". I understand that someone mistakenly saying one instead of the other could be frustrating, and I see why you would ask for an example of the "months of work" remark. That's the kind of comment you're at liberty to simply not believe until you're shown an example. (This is, of course, no reason to be rude about it. No I'm not calling you rude; I'm just saying.) However, I must observe that, per WP:WIARM, "Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors." The best thing we can do is to ignore the distinction, and teach others to ignore it. Maybe you could start referring to guidelines as policies yourself, and vice-versa. You might find it liberating. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some guidelines I would prefer to be policies and vice cersa, but that's obviously not what you mean :-) The distinction is often not that important, but when people use things which aren't even a guideline and are, as is obvious from recent discussion, not really widely supported or practiced, as clubs to beat other editors in discussions, it is better to give the correct status of their arguments. People are entitled to think that BEFORE or JNN or KILLCRUFT should be policy, and people are entitled to express that they support any of those and for that reason think that X should be kept/deleted/merged, but when they start pretending that one should follow BEFORE because it is policy, or that a JNN argument will be ignored as invalid, it is time to intervene. Fram (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone tries to use something as a club, the problem is not the status of the page. The problem is that we're trying to club each other instead of discussing with an attitude of rationality, collegiality, and even—as Jimbo often says—kindness. Ask yourself whether you're being kind. Don't tell others they're being unkind; lead by example. Talking about the status of the page reinforces a bad superstition. Nobody should follow anything because it's policy. If you think policy is wrong, then following it is unconscionable. Conversely, no principle should be ignored because it's not policy. If it's not policy, but it's a good idea, then it's unconscionable to ignore it. Talking about the status of a page is cancer; status should not enter into our considerations, period. All policy (or guideline, or essay) citations are simply shorthand for the ideas contained therein. This is simply Sartre's existential notion of being condemned to our freedom. You don't get to appeal to "policy" to justify your actions. You have to actually justify them. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Until there is something in place that requires editors that create new pages to include sources and other information to substantiate an article outside of the special CSD cases, making BEFORE guideline or policy is completely against the role of who has the burden to establish sources for an article described by WP:V. That is, if BEFORE were guideline or policy, and knowing the tactics of the various "factions", I could make a whole bunch of stubby articles, particularly within certain classes of articles like fictional characters, with just a hint of a source that keeps them out of CSD's hands, and then know that they will be kept either because someone else, who was going to send the article to AFD, would have to take up BEFORE and find sources thus improving it, or would likely be discouraged by the need to execute BEFORE and thus would avoid the hassle of AFD (heck, how does PROD fit under that too?).  If there is no barrier or minimum requirement for creating an article, there needs to be a similar one for at least nominating an article for deletion; BEFORE is completely unbalanced against the removal side.
 * What really needs to be done is to get rid of the "inclusionists"/"deletionists" titles, and recognize we are all trying to build an encyclopedia. We want to include as much verifiable information as possible but at the same time, we're now maturing and recognizing that we are also increasing the minimum quality threshold for how we present that information. That doesn't mean we disclude reliable information, but sometimes it is better to present it in a larger context than insisting it much have an article on its down. There is absolution nothing wrong with redirects for terms with minimal information to a larger article in context as that means the term is still searchable on WP and there's no prejudice for future expansion if more information becomes known. Sometimes there are topics that need to be outright deleted, but in most cases, there is nearly always some possible target that such redirects can point to.  If everyone editing recognized this as a usable solution that gets us to the end faster in these discussions, then the original point of this thread is addressed.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem I think that's right on target. If people who see themselves as "inclusionists" or "article rescuers" took a more mergist approach, we could avoid a lot of problems. A great many stubby articles that tend to get AfD'd could exist quite peacefully as sections in larger articles on more notable topics. Why not begin new topics as new sections in existing articles, and then let them "bud off" when it becomes clear they're taking up too much space in the larger topic? This would seem to me to be a better way of opposing the "deletionist" attitude. It's like aikido - don't try to meet the force head-on; let it roll across you. Merge. I think that this, combined with some kind of article "incubator" (as suggested by User:Fritzpoll) for topics that don't have clear merge targets, could do a lot to reduce the level of unproductive conflict at AfD. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "going after" userfied pages: userfied pages are a problem if people don't put at the front. We've had a few back-and-forths about whether Google indexes user pages, but right now, it does. That means if you put a POV fork or other unsuitable article in your user space, Google presents that as essentially the equivalent of an article. Sometimes, all I will do is NOINDEX the article if it seems that the user has benign intent, and is working to fix things. If it seems that the reason the article is userfied is as a means to circumvent the AFD, and the user has no apparent intent to correct the problems that resulted in the AFD consensus being "delete", I'll go to MFD. Admins that userfy articles really should insert the NOINDEX tag as a default step.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's definitely an important detail. Whether articles are userfied, or copied to some other neutral location for repairs, they shouldn't show up in searches until they're made into actual articles. Kind of like how Pinocchio couldn't register to vote until he became a "real boy". :) -GTBacchus(talk) 12:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look. there are serious structural problems with NPP, CSD and AFD.  Full stop.  New editors get blindsided with deletion notices, the false positive rate (even after taking into account DRV) is unacceptably high (my guess is that it is about 5% for CSD and AFD, not sure what it is combined).  Even the articles which may never make it into the encyclopedia end up running through a deletion process that pisses off everyone involved.  Deletion, and deletion related pettifoggery are the top complaints one hears about wikipedia on digg or /. or ars or reddit (ignoring all the stupid shit about jimbo's dalliances).  The process has problems.  Big ones.  But here's the rub.  In 2007 we deleted close to 1000 pages a day--just in article space.  The number of total deletions per day was closer to 4000.  That number hasn't been going down (at least not by much).  We need a solution to our problems above that reflects the need we face.  And I don't have a lot of trust in reform proposals which are predicated on the notion that so long as our deletion policy becomes toothless, everything will be fine.  So.  Half of change comes from accepting that a crisis exists.  The other half comes from bringing in a solution that resolves the crisis and doesn't create another, bigger crisis.  We need the other half right now. Protonk (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that bad deletions (and bad deletion proposals) are a serious problem. (And I'd put the bad CSD tagging rate as much, much higher than 5%) But I've yet to see a proposed solution that will work. Many taggers aren't reading the instructions as it is, so new instructions aren't going to be enough. I try to educate the bad taggers, with limited success, but new ones crop up all the time (and a few just don't want to be educated, going so far as to put notices on their talk pages asking people not to leave messages about CSD tagging). Because there's no effective system for admin feedback, and unless someone goes on a rampage adminhood is for life, so it's hard to have an impact on admins who incorrectly delete mistagged articles. (Yeah, I've politely tried to get clarification on why they thought article x was speediable, and the response is usually "fuck off".) So, Protonk, if you have a solution that will work, I'd love to hear it. In the mean time, I'll continue to bang my head on my desk.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much my suggestion that I'm hashing out at GTBacchus' page will help - its effect is to get articles out of mainspace without deletion to be less bitey to unwitting newbies, as well as not draining AfD and our other backlogs with articles that clearly wouldn't survive without a fair bit of work. This might make a smallish dent over time, but only if ultimately incorporated widely in the deletion process.  For now, we'll probably just trial it almost semi-Wikiproject style and try to hash out the bugs - if it works, hopefully everyone will agree to incorporate it.  If it fails, well, at least we tried! Fritzpoll (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be a bit slow this morning (not enough tea in me yet, and the whole making a living thing wants my attention soon), but how is incubation fundamentally different than userfication? It's the same thing in a different space, as far as I can see. No objection to it at all, I userfy a lot for people, but the people who are slapping on bad tags and admins who are making bad deletions currently aren't considering improvement or userfication, so why would they consider this? Am I completely missing something here? (Quite possible, so please educate me.)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary difference I see is that it's centralized. If there's a page that keeps track of all the incubated articles, then it's much easier to know how many there are, whether any progress is being made, etc. It also makes it easier for would-be article rescuers to locate articles in need of the type of care that they offer. Also, it makes it easier to clear out dead weight, if there are articles that aren't being improved after some time in incubation. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (after e/c) There are a few differences, which I will now probably bore you by explaining!
 * The most obvious thing is that incubation is centralised - an inexperienced editor might not know what to do with their userfied article, how to bring it up to scratch, etc. but in a centralised location, other editors can a) do the work, and b) show the newer editor the problems, which may aid retention and improve the quality of subsequent contributions.
 * Incubation can replace the slapping on of tags - if something is incubated that shouldn't be, the correction is less worrisome to the author and doesn't require admins overturning admins, with all the problematic scenarios that result. This rests, however, on a supposition that people are not slapping on tags because they are desperate to delete.  My personal opinion is that in the vast majority of cases, this is not true but YMMV.  This could arguably also apply to admins considering deletion - another option that has the same effect
 * Userfied articles can last forever regardless of lack of improvement, and are technically speaking a pain to get rid of because of the apparent sanctity of the userspace. As this is in the early stages of discussion, I can't say how exactly incubation prevents this, save to say that it is easier to develop guidelines that affect a new WP-space entity than to change guidance for the entire userspace.
 * In terms of reducing traffic to AfD, this can be used as soon as the nomination is made to prevent a long-winded discussion. In essence, you work out some criteria (possibly as weak as editor discretion) to close an AfD and move the article into the incubation space.  In theory, this could be done with the author's consent through userfication, but apart from the problems of userfication above, it would require more widespread education to allow an author to realise that such a request could be made - we all appear to be of the mind that more instructions for potential participants in a debate is not helpful.
 * As I say, this idea is merely in concept at present, and if it can't be made to be more useful than existing processes, then I doubt anyone would want to go ahead with it. It also will not solve every problem - someone who is desperate to delete something will do everything possible to bypass any alternative.  But if we can dent the AfD traffic, regulars and other editors may be able to spend more time examining AfDs to come to a more reasonable decision - and that cuts both ways, since more time for examination can make people more confident to favour deletion.  I'm hopeful that this isn't really an inclusionist- or deletionist-leaning proposal (for whatever such labels are worth) since poor material will get taken from the main body of the encyclopedia, but may return after substantial improvements. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All good points, and will probably improve things. I have absolutely no problem with trying it (and a script to move to incubation would be wonderful), but I remain a bit skeptical that it will be used by the worst of the speedy taggers and deleting admins. :) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a healthy skepticism - I think the best we can hope for is to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio enough that the problem cases can be more easily identified. We can then tackle that problem separately.  A notification will spring up on this page when we've made some progress Fritzpoll (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jclemens proposed a similar process a few months ago (WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 54), which he mentioned above. I lean towards modifying WP:Userfication to add centralized listings using a category and/or bot, as 1) the page lives in its sponsor's userspace, and 2) even if the overall process is rejected, incremental improvements may be kept. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm a lot more skeptical of a proposal like that w/ today's ARS than I was with May 2009's ARS. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, what do you mean? How is the ARS different now from how it was in the Spring? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has just become progressively more about keeping articles that are at AfD than improving articles, in my opinion. I don't want to rehash the whole debate or name names. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's no need for that. You answered my question. I wonder to what extent an attitude of "stop deletions!" has been conditioned by (and possibly contributive to) a contrary attitude of more and more strident deletionism. I feel as if AfD discussions I see recently are more polarized in general, i.e., on both sides. Once people take on such a dyadic conflict, reason begins to drop away in favor of a desire to win. A real shame. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this escalation will reach a plateau, and suddenly everyone will realize how silly they've been acting, and we come out on the other side stronger and unified. Or maybe I'm just dreaming. But sometimes dreams come true. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that what we're pushing towards will start to show people that they don't have to take a side in a strict delete/keep dichotomy. That polarization is what leads to the nastiness that is so often encountered in these debates. The more people realize that there is a whole spectrum of workable solutions, the less combative the atmosphere will be. That's the hope, anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We're now going to leave GTBacchus's talk page in peace, and instead have started discussions at WP:INCUBATE/WT:INCUBATE. Nothing really written there yet - the page exists principally to give a brief overview, and to prevent discussion spilling over several pages. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Should admins look at the article?
I'm breaking this out because I think it's a separate topic that is likely to get buried. Personally, I think the answer is a resounding "yes", but only in a very narrow context: validating the claims made in an argument is necessary to give an argument proper weight. If someone argues that an article should be kept because there are multiple independent sources, and his claim is counter-argued by someone that says "no, all those sources are press releases", there's just no way to evaluate that without looking at the sources. It's not the role of the closing admin to evaluate the article per se, but he does have to weigh the arguments.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm not misrepresenting myself, I agree completely that factual validation by an admin of contentious facts is perfectly fine. Otherwise, as you say, weight can't be applied appropriately Fritzpoll (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If an AfD is contested at all, an admin should look at the article, and evaluate the weight given to the !votes in light of the state of the article at the time of closing. Every "No RS" !vote that is found to be inaccurate at the time of close has no policy basis, and therefore cannot be included in a rough consensus. That is, an established editor who makes a good-faith "no RS" argument counts as much as an SPA who !votes "keep--the world needs this information!" Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes, the closer should read the article, as well as any sources mentioned in the AfD. Yes, the admin needs to try to keep as neutral a view as possible, but I just can't see how anyone can weigh the strength of an argument without doing so. (And if the sources don't match the arguments, it's entirely appropriate to say so in the closing statement.) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)