Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who)


 * Comment Please see Wikiquette_alerts Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This entire situation has just turned into a rampaging mess
Translocated from the main AfD


 * Delete I'm actually vaguely embarrassed that it has blown so out of proportion. Thusfar, we only have a single episode worth of information about this species and not even information as such, more speculation than hard facts. The page can always be recreated when further information comes along (as I'm sure it will) and I or someone else can re-upload the picture. I move to have the page redirected until such time as there is more info to make a well fleshed-out article. I realize the article isn't mine, per se, but a redirect isn't the same as a deletion: it can always be reverted to an article. Half  Shadow  18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, essentially, you're trying to do this to go over the heads of all the people voting keep in order to avoid it being kept, as it will be from the discussion above. Obvious oppose. The sources represented show that the subject meet the GNG and we know that there will be further coverage, because they are the main enemy of the entire season and they've received this much coverage just from a single episode. Silver  seren C 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources represented show that the subject meet the GNG – I wonder, then, why a significant number of editors and administrators have commented here suggesting that it should be merged for want of coverage, then. That's quite strange if the case is as black-and-white as you suggest. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  without portfolio  ─╢ 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a stake in this too, Silver; I'm the one who posted the image to the page. If the page is redirected, my image gets deleted after a week. I'm simply trying to cut the right colored wire so the bomb doesn't explode. We can always flesh this out later, but this is starting to get ugly and I honestly think this is the path of least resistance. The page will still be there. Hell, you can even revert it from a redirect and add to the previous page's text if you wanna. But as it is, people are getting pissed off at other people and it isn't helping anyone.  Half  Shadow  18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me the purpose of this then when the AfD is clearly going to close as Keep? Silver  seren C 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called "backing out gracefully". As you know, an AfD is not won by votes cast and, being as I am technically involved, I am simply letting it be known that I am washing my hands of the entire thing. Half  Shadow  18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay? You could have just crossed out your vote then or something, but starting a redirect proposal in the middle of an AfD is rather inappropriate. Silver  seren C 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote. I don't vote in situations in which I'm involved. The fact that I'm breaking my own rule and are should give you an idea of how disappointed I am of the entire situation. Half  Shadow  19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the discussion up above other than the fact that Treasury Tag is arguing with most commenters. If you ignore that, it's pretty much just people voting. I don't see any huge debates are anything going on. If this is your idea of a contentious AfD that needs this sort of mediation proposal, then you haven't really been in a contentious AfD before. Silver  seren C 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

< Couple of observations: HalfShadow isn't the first person to propose a merge/redirect, plenty of others have done so above in response to Avanu's proposal. And I wouldn't be 100% certain of a 'keep' closure, at the very least a 'no consensus' is very much on the cards. If one excludes the most obvious ILIKEIT violations, the !votes between 'keep' and 'merge' are pretty much evenly balanced. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  You may go away now.  ─╢ 19:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between voting merge and trying to start a merge proposal in the midst of an AfD. The first is according to process, the second isn't helpful and comes close to disruption. Silver  seren C 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I guess you'll be issuing a pretty stern warning to Avanu for proposing the idea more than 48 hours ago? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu has already been admonished for trying to actively redirect an article in the middle of an AfD discussion. Silver  seren C 19:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's hardly the same as proposing a redirect or merge. The whole point to an AfD discussion is to discuss – to talk about stuff. Making a suggestion WRT merging/redirecting the article counts as discussion.  --88.104.40.103 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But people have already been discussing why it should be merged above anyways. But trying to start a new section in order to restart a proposal to merge in order to disregard what has already been discussed above is the issue. Silver  seren C 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

End Transclusion Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh, pretty standard for AfD. I've often argued with folks here and got on fine elsewhere. Seriously though, does illustrate the benefit of folding Afd, MERGE and MOVE into an "articles for Discussion type-venue. One can hear/see the tumbleweeds a-blowing at the latter two venues...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The point of the Article Rescue Squadron is not to keep everything, but to rescue articles with worthy content. As a member of ARS, I evaluate each article and the references and the rescue effort, and I feel free to vote Delete when I think it is appropriate. In some cases, I don't care what happens and I just abstain from voting. The rescue template is appropriate until a decision is made by an administrator, and then it is removed, either by an administrator or by someone else so it is no longer in the rescue list.  DThomsen8 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Rescue Tag in Article
When we add a Articles for Deletion tag to an article, it asks us not to blank the tag or remove it during the discussion. The AfD tag allows people to improve the article. The AfD discussion is open to all and continues until a consensus decision can be reached.

Now, I am fine with keeping this article, or merging this article. I'm not in favor of deleting the content in this article. But, someone came along and added a RESCUE tag, which provides suggestions for rescuing the article from deletion, along with a command not to remove the article. While I agree this is a fine goal, I don't feel that it is appropriate to have an unremovable deletion tag AND an unremovable rescue tag. One side is demanding to be heard for deletion and the other is demanding to be heard for 'keep' (rescue). This is inappropriate.

If someone needs to rescue the article, then simply do so, and tell people in the AfD that you are answering the critical comments in AfD, and willing, able, and doing what it takes for the article to survive. But adding another tag that runs counter to consensus doesn't seem to be the right approach.

No one is preventing improvements to the article, and if people recognize that improvements HAVE been made, they will likely change their attitudes in the consensus. But waving our virtual hands and saying "I'LL SAVE IT!!" without actual improvements seems to be a way to WP:GAME the AfD discussion, and again, is inappropriate. -- Avanu (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the problem is. First of all, the rescue tag only requests that it not be removed.  It is not a demand (unlike the AfD tag) but I am not sure why the request would be ignored unless there was a good reason.  The tag has nothing to do with gaming the system, it just informs those interested that someone believes that an article at AfD might be have issues that can be addressed, so that those interested can do so. here.  If they succeed, great.  If not, I'm not sure any harm is done by letting them try. Rlendog (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems like an overreaction.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)