Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 2

Update guidelines
I've just had an article Manuel Torres (porn star) that I've been fleshing out with a few other people nominated as an AfD 1 hour and 12 minutes after its creation! This is absurd. It's nominated using criteria that aren't even approved or adopted&mdash;Notability (pornographic actors). Instead of having time to work on the article, now I get to work on defending its existence. I'd like to think that the nominator is unfamiliar with the nominating process, but I doubt it. I'm specifically referring to Before nominating an AfD:


 * Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a template.

This sort of nomination should definitely be added as criteria for "speedy keep" when the article is in the process of being created and is on a valid topic. Nor should the article be tagged as a "stub" or anything else in the first hours of its creation. This only discourages authoring any articles; maybe that's the nominator's intent. &mdash; Chidom   talk   23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I don't think it falls under speedy keep. The article is failing not only WP:BIO but WP:PORN BIO as well. It has to meet requirments of notabililty as well as verifiability. Sorry. SynergeticMaggot 23:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is off-topic. This isn't about the notability of the article; that's being debated elsewhere. This is about the rapidity with which the article was nominated for deletion. The Before nominating an AfD guidelines have been completely ignored in this case. The article is not a "hopeless case", it's not nonsense, and it's being actively edited. I know it doesn't currently fall under Speedy Keep, that's what I'm trying to have changed. I think it should qualify as Speedy Keep; the nomination was inappropriate and doesn't deserve the time it will take / is taking to respond to it. If you want to nominate the article, fine&mdash;but wait more than an hour and 12 minutes to do so and give the authors time to work on it. The nomination has now taken away that time, which may have been the intent all along. &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how its off topic. You asked a question, and I gave you my answer. Its more fitting as speedy delete under CSD A7, which is vanity. It was disputed and now its onto AfD. This is what happens when the prod tag is removed. You coming here to ask for speedy keep to be ammended to suit on ongoing AfD is bad form. I recomend that you take your dispute back to AfD. Have a nice day :) SynergeticMaggot 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was no prod, from what I see. SynergeticMaggot 00:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There never was a speedy; there was never a prod; there's an AfD. That was added to the article a little over an hour after it was started. &mdash; Chidom   talk   06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Either way. I don't see it fitting into speedy keep when it meets a speedy delete as vanity, non notable, and does not accert importance. We cant ammend a guideline based on this. You still have four days to work on the article. Has the actor won awards? Can you verify it? I purposly did not bring up speedy delete on the AfD to give you time to work on the article. So please take my advice and work on it. SynergeticMaggot 07:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we're supposed to discuss and give articles with a plausible chance of becoming encyclopedic the benefit of the doubt, per the instructions he's referring to. Progressive saves often look crappy at the beginning, but can be much better after 4 or 6 or 12 hours. We've got such a high rate of new pages, though, that people are getting quicker on the draw to try to send things to the trash bin. -- nae'blis 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But send an article to the trash bin (or nominate it to go there) an hour after it's created? I think that's a bit quick on the draw than is healthy for any new article. Failing outright libel or vitriol, a page should be given a chance; if it's nominated in its first 24-48 hours for an AfD it should qualify for a Speedy Keep. There's no way to tell if the article will meet notability guidelines or anything else in its first few hours. Yes, these things should be drafted in someone's sandbox and not put in public until they're ready; but if the originator has taken it as far an s/he can and needs further input, how is that to be sought without "publishing" it? I suspect that had this been an article of two paragraphs about an NFL football player, it would be around for years before someone nominated it for an AfD. As it is, this was an article about a gay porn performer, of substantially more than two paragraphs, but because of its topic, it got nominated too quickly. That's POV, not policy; there should be a way to keep the article for updating and editing without having to deal with 5 days of arguments on an AfD page that shouldn't have been created to begin with. &mdash; Chidom   talk   09:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith in your fellow editors. I don't know whether it was nominated for AFD because of the subject matter, and since the nominator didn't put "OMG teh buttseks" in the edit summary, it's likely you don't either. The article is in fact two paragraphs about a gay porn actor, not counting the bullet-list videography. Also keep in mind that the "proven" audience for your average NFL players is probably larger than your average gay porn video (which doesn't mean anything, except that your analogy might be flawed). I agree with you that articles are sometimes being nominated too quickly, but keep in mind that a) the article was kept, i.e. consensus "worked" and had the result you wanted (not always the same thing, of course), and b) there's few practical ways to tag new pages for checking on them 24-48 hours after creation, which is why New Pages Patrol is the first line of defense against spurious articles. I'd apperciate hearing any suggestions you have about how to make the process work more like it is described. -- nae'blis 14:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

....deep breath.... Thank you for the reminder&mdash;I do forget at times that we're all here trying to make this the best it can be. It is difficult, as a member of a minority against which much discrimination has occurred, to step outside that mindset and try to see other reasons for people's behavior. I usually can do it; I'm not sure I did in this case. I'll try harder. And my logic was probably terribly flawed; it was, however, meant to illustrate that two-paragraph articles on less controversial topics often survive for months.

Two examples: there is a three-sentence article with dubious claims to notability that's been around for 9 months, see Paula White. I have a difficult time being objective on that particular topic, so I'm trying to leave well enough alone. (Which I probably just failed to do.)

Michael Ninn is an incredibly well-known director in the straight porn industry who has contributed at least one film to the gay porn industry that won a number of awards and was noted for its departure from the usual method of directing such films. His article is two sentences and a list of films. He's notable because he has done so many films and is so well known in the industry; so I realize that it's not just gay performers/directors, etc. that are difficult in terms of obtaining information. (Although with the references cited on his page, I think a better article could be written.)

Some articles about gay porn actors may never get beyond two paragraphs and a bullet list of films; it is extremely difficult to get documented information about them. That doesn't necessarily mean they're not about notable performers; it also doesn't necessarily mean that they should be deleted, or that they should be kept. It's not surprising that the information is difficult to come by, and extremely frustrating. I suspect (and this is strictly POV, I realize) that pornography is just one of those "we're not supposed to talk about that stuff, so why put it in an encyclopedia?" topics for many, many people.

Guidelines for notability of these sorts of articles are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors). I assumed that the nominator was aware of that, since the Notability article (it was formerly known as WP:PORN BIO) was listed in his reason for nomination. I have come to realize that citing the article doesn't necessarily mean that he reviewed the lengthy discussion about it. Yes, the article in question was kept after 5 days of comments in any number of places; all that took time that I feel needn't have been given to that effort at the expense of other efforts.

I also understand that the New Pages Patrol is the first line of defense against spurious articles, and I know there are tons of them and not enough administrators to go around. As far as suggestions about making the process work more like it is described, if the process described in the quote above were followed&mdash;sdding a template to the article and leaving comment(s) on the article's Talk page or the Talk page for the article's creator&mdash;I think that would cover it. My initial thought in all of this was that a page that had been nominated too quickly could be eligible for a Speedy Keep on the basis that the nomination was too speedy. I'm not sure that works; however, I still maintain that it's impossible to tell if an article that is similar to other existing articles, but shorter and less well-documented, is a candidate for deletion within the first few hours of its creation. Does that need to be "codified" somewhere? Do we need a "clock" on articles? I'm afraid I don't have any good answers here; but I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its understandable, yet the actor was hardly notable. If an amendment were to take place, I doubt the article in which you wanted saved would fall under it as an exception. And article has to be important, encyclopedic, notable, and verifiable to be included. It failed on all of this without having to mention WP:PORN BIO. SynergeticMaggot 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I could support having a Speedy Keep for articles which are less than X hours old and do not meet a CSD criterion. I think we're experiencing growing pains, and I appreciate your response. Do keep in mind, though, that that same discrimination you're talking about is being used in reverse to argue that gay porn (as a niche market) has different requirements from mainstream porn. I've seen at least two keeps result from AFDs though, so the criteria you're talking about seems to be gaining traction. -- nae'blis 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unanswered question, plus
My question still is unanswered. Can we add in for clarity that if there is no vote by the nom, it can be kept? Also, there is an issue of how fast a speedy keep really is. I usually close them in four days. Every time a new day is listed, I go through the second page from the bottom, and close em all. But then again, if there are around 9-15 people saying speedy keep on the articles first day on AfD, it gets kept by someone. It seems to me that alot more needs to be added to this page. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, as a personal preference, I never close an AfD that only 3-4 people have said keep on. These types might get relisted and 4 people is hardly a consensus to me. SynergeticMaggot 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In most cases, the nominator is arguing for deletion, even if not specifically "voting". There are rare cases when the nominator specifies that they have no opinion, and that would apply, but don't write it so it sounds that the nominator has to specifically say Delete or risk speedy keeping. If you want to add something like "or if the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves", that would be all right. You may want to shorten it, though. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do happen to see alot of nom's opting not to give an opinion. I'd just like some clarity in the current guideline. SynergeticMaggot 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I put it in. I added in the edit summary that if someone wants to shorten it, they can do so. I think it was fine the way you put it, but it may infact need shortening. SynergeticMaggot 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

New Project
Due to a number of AfD's that have been closed as keep or speedy keep by non admins, a WikiProject has been created in an effort to help reduce the number of resubmissions by placing the oldafd tag on article talk pages. For more information, please see WikiProject AfD closing. SynergeticMaggot 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

exception to the exception
I've got some difficulty articulating what exactly is wrong with this, but: seems to lack something in the "Also..." statement. Frequently, a nominator will not explicitly say delete, but that's not always the same thing as not supporting deletion. I'd rather that sentence read something like, "However, in some cases the nominator is acting on behalf of another user (finish an incomplete nomination) or for some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves; these should not be speedily kept unless such an intention is made clear by the actual nominator." It's far from perfect language, though... -- nae'blis 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. 
 * Here's how I've generally interpreted it: The article is AfD'd by Editor A, Editors B-G do not recommend deletion. The AfD can be speedy kept if a) Editor A withdraws the nomination, or b) Editor A put the page up on behalf of Editor X with no opinion, who never followed through with the nomination.  While I have my own amendments to this, I think a wording like the following might work:
 * The nominator withdraws his/her recommendation for deletion, and no other editors recommend deletion during the discussion, or when a nominator, while offering no opinion, nominates an AfD to complete the process, and no other editors recommend deletion.
 * Is that more easily understood? Does it change the meaning of anything?  (BTW, I reposted on an edit conflict, if you want to retract your statement, feel free, I'm not trying to step on your toes). --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine, I was going to merge it with the above section about the same thing, then just decided to be bold and try to edit the change in. Now that the page is protected, let's work it out here, though: My last edit was "However this does not apply in cases where the nominator specifies they are editing on behalf of someone else (such as an incomplete nomination), or has some other explicit reason to not argue for deletion themselves." -- nae'blis 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So your change would eliminate the ability to speedy keep based on "Completing nomination"-style entries w/o delete recommendations from any editors? I just want to be able to understand it clearly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not precisely. If someone/somebot is completing a broken nomination, then presumably the original nominator's intention still stands. I would argue against the idea that such a SK criterion exists now, except in the breach. This is different from, say, Xoloz' procedural relistings, where he truly doesn't have a dog in the fight, and says as much. -- nae'blis 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

arbitrary break
That was added from AfD talk because I couldnt get a response from here a while back (in other words, I had to reach some consensus there and not here). Not many people care about this guideline I'm guessing. I added it because there were some cases where there was no reason given by the nom. In some of these cases, the nom either waits until they see the replys before making a decision themselves, or is just new and wants to nom something. Either way, I'd only support it for inclusion on the basis that not all noms really want the article deleted, but bring it to AfD anyway. SynergeticMaggot 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're trimming has been reverted. It was fine the way it was. SynergeticMaggot 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it should only be speedy when the pseudo-nominator explicit says something to the effect of "I have no opinion, just bringing this here to complete Joe Schmoe's partial nomination," or to gather a larger consensus, etc. In the former case, it's up to Joe to withdraw, and in the latter, I'd still prefer to see an explicit "Okay, good to know I was ill-informed about the fame of mallards in Tibet." -- nae'blis 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So do you think my alternate wording above encompasses that in a better way than what's there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Really, we've got three types of nominators: regular deletion-oriented nominators, procedural nominators/bots who are completing someone else's deletion nomination, and questioning nominators who may not actually support deletion, but either want a wider consensus than prod or don't know enough about the subject. I would say that the second caetgory fails over to the original nominator, and the third must explicitly say they aren't after deletion to be a valid SK. Something like Xoloz' "I abstain." for post-Deletion Review procedural nominations, for example. Otherwise we end up reading too much intent into the original nominator, who may not know all of our processes and traditions. -- nae'blis 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if he/she doesnt withdraw, thats what the aim is here. SynergeticMaggot 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's going to take a lot more discussion to get approved, though, and the wording would have to be much better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * More consensus than it coming from AfD talk? More users and admins follow there, then here. SynergeticMaggot 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then post a link to the discussion here over there. Get people involved.  The worst thing that could happen is that you get consensus, or what you think is consensus, do what you think consensus indicates, and then have 5 people jump at you for it, especially when it comes to guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm done with it for right now. I've proposed it, its up to others to either fix my proposal (well its actually your proposal) and add it in, or reject it. SynergeticMaggot 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert
Badlydrawnjeff. I dont need a consensus to be bold and add in what is currently being done in several AfD logs. But if consensus is what you want, consensus is what we'll seek. I'd like to know from anyone if they feel that WP:SNOW shouldnt be added. SynergeticMaggot 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, to change a guideline, you absolutely need consensus to do so. If you want to do something similar to what's expressed there (like, for instance, Articles at AfD which have shown considerable opinions to keep with minimal argument for deletion, or something like it), you have my support, but not without getting consensus here first, and not as you worded it. Be bold has its roots and attitude in article space, not in guideline and policy pages. I'll point you to our page on policies and guidelines, where it's noted that guidelines are reached via consensus, and shouldn't be changed or amended without discussion on the talk page. "Improvements" don't mean radical changes to what the guideline says, to cut that argument off at the pass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the snowball clause is predicated on Ignore All Rules, and thus codifying into a guideline seems sort of perverse. It's also widely disputed, not bound by any guideline except "I knew it was going to be a slamdunk", and otherwise falls outside the purview of this guideline. Which is not to say it's completely invalid, it's just outside the system, to a large degree. -- nae'blis 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it was a healthy change, given that a lot of people interpret WP:SNOW closings as "Well I really think this article should be kept/deleted, and it's already heading that direction even though some people object... it would be a really dramatic victory if I closed it early" which is not really what SNOW (or at least IAR) is about exactly. In a perfect world, yeah, it would be okay to close early... but our forsight isn't always perfect, alas. Also, I think it's kind of ironic that people are apparently clammoring to close some afds early while there's a perpetual 3-5 day backlog for those of us who actually close AfDs regularly. Just kind of weird... --W.marsh 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks the responses. While I was thinking I might be pushing it with SNOW, I was looking for some way to reflect the current closes as keep seeing as how most of them recently have in fact been closed with SNOW in mind. I didnt feel a simple linking would actually hurt in this case, as its in no way saying "hey, go close everything now per SNOW". We really dont have any guideline for keeping aside from Speedy. So if people are going to close early anyway, I think we should add some of the more common close examples to this guideline. SynergeticMaggot 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You still lack consensus to do this. You and I following roughly 20 minutes of discussion on the talk page isn't consensus, so I'm reverting. I want speedy keep expanded, too, but I want it done the proper way so there's no confusion or complaints. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by the archive and recent conversation, we're the only users on here. No one else has objected to the addition but you, and funny thing is, its your suggestion. SynergeticMaggot 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no expectation for everyone who is either a) watching this page or b) would have an interest in the goings-on to have chimed in within a half hour of a suggestion. With a change of this magnitude, which would largely change the way we handle a number of AfDs in the future, to act as if we have consensus without, at the very least, advertising the discussion at the village pump and at the general AfD talk page would only cause more issues later.  We have two people above who have expressed reservations already, and my suggestion was poorly worded and merely an example of what a similar final product would be.  There's certainly no reason to rush it - if I thought I could get away with it, I would have already done so long before you got here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your statement here. The page/talk page edit history has more than just the two of you, and opinion seems to be about equally split so far. W. marsh and I had already commented by then, what did you mean by "the only users on here"? -- nae'blis 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Me, you, Bdjeff, W. marsh, is what I meant, not just two people. Upon reading, I saw no actual objections to including an actual acknowledgment of real time keeps (not the inclusion of SNOW, but of the last inclusion suggested by Bdjeff). I can list plenty of examples for you if you want. Or ask that the closers come here to voice their opinioins? But to not include something that is openly being done, or will continue to be done regardless of you or I, will be left up to whatever we decide from now on I suppose, per consensus. SynergeticMaggot 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My experience here is that trying to codify what's already done can be controversial. Check the archives about my attempted change earlier this year.  What's openly done doesn't mean it's right, as we both know, and if we're going to change the guideline, we need to get people to come here and get as good a consensus as possible.  It's the way editing guidelines work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. I thinks it rather bland to not include common practice on a guideline. We must at least admit somewhere that it happens everyday. If it doesnt belong here then fine. It wont stop the early closer from doing it anyway. :/ SynergeticMaggot 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I was objecting too, so I wasn't sure why you were saying only BDJ was doing so (just because he's faster than me, heh). The problem I have, as I said above, is that WP:SNOW isn't a guideline, it's not even really an essay, it's mainly a reformulation of IAR. So to put into a guideline, "Here are the rules for speedily keeping something: .... And you may of course ignore all the rules if you see fit." is just odd to me. WP:SNOW is valid in certain cases, but trying to codify it will only result in a paradox, and everybody disappearing in a puff of smoke. -- nae'blis 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I left SNOW out of this a while ago. Come up with a better solution to include the more recent early closes and I'll support it. If an article doesnt have a real reason for deletion plus the fact that is hasnt a snowballs chance in hell of being deleted, its more likely to be an early close/fast keep (i.e. speedy). I'm going with the name here: early close = speedy per the 5 day standard. Its mere common sense to add this in somewhere. So as I said, help come up with a better way to include, as there is me an Bdjeff here to support something along those lines. SynergeticMaggot 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, your last edit on this subject was to add:
 * The AfD discussion has shown considerable opinions to keep with minimal argument for deletion.
 * Which is essentially WP:SNOW without a name. It is massive scope creep to say that "considerable" opinions to keep trump "minimal" arguments for deletion. Like Speedy deletion, we want clear, unambiguous criteria here, right? What is "considerable"? What is "minimal"? It's easy to note "No one is currently voting delete, including the original nominator", and close it. Anything else beggars the definition of consensus. -- nae'blis 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I noted that in my edit summary. Those were his words, or how he wanted to phrase it without the linking of SNOW. So lets fix the wording shall we? SynergeticMaggot 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point #1 already covers it to my mind, if we can work out the details of what is and isn't an exception to the exception, as below. -- nae'blis 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My intent, as I noted above, was not that those words that I used as a starting point example be used in the actual guideline. As discussion was expected, it was merely to give an idea as to how to word it without linking to bad places. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point one in no way reflects the recent early keeps done by closers on AfD. Bdjeff will more than likely agree with me on this, seeing as how we have had a simular dispute on the matter. AfD's are being closed after 2-4 days (and sometimes same day), after a large consensus has been reached, with or without quoting SNOW. And not to mention AfD's where there was not one reason to delete. Please explain how it reflects point one, and I'll leave it at alone for good. And Bdjeff, thats understood. SynergeticMaggot 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) I understand that they are being closed early outside of the SK parameters; I'm disputing that they need to be "brought into the fold", as it were. Most would fall under IAR, and some get disputed; I'd rather not encourage early closes in any but totally unambiguous cases, so I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain. I've said how I would interpret Point 1, which does not include the "deletion arguments are minimal" as a sole reason to early close. -- nae'blis 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, so far as I see, there are 3 users who would like something simular to SNOW added, if I'm not mistaken (me, Bdjeff, and MONGO). I was asking that you help reword what I had begun, and Bdjeff had made an attempt at rewording. The inclusion of an additional speedy keep criteria which is not represented in point one. SynergeticMaggot 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

protected
The page is protected, see Protection policy. Most of us are admins though apparently, that doesn't mean we can just edit war freely though. Anyway I'm out but I wanted to mention that before I left. --W.marsh 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no admin, but are you sure you did it right? I just edited a few seconds ago. SynergeticMaggot 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was semi-protected when you edited...it appears to be fully protected now.--MONGO 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you throw the template on the top, por favor? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I object that there is an actual dispute here though. Possibly some confusion, but not a dispute. SynergeticMaggot 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes I do know that I'm disputing the fact that we are disputing. SynergeticMaggot 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The WP:SNOW stuff got re-added, it seemed like there was an edit war brewing... anyway if there isn't a dispute then the page should be unprotected... but I think we should discuss before adding stuff people disagree with. --W.marsh 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've requested unprotection. We seem to be committed to working it out on the talk page now before editing the guideline directly. -- nae'blis 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was readded by MONGO I believe. I just want to work this out to include at least something. I promise not to add snow back in :) SynergeticMaggot 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

post-protection (or soon to be)

 * new header per SM's gracious request
 * Right, well, I didn't know I was walking into a hornet's nest, but anything you two can agree on is impressive to me. What I don't get is the impetus to codify WP:SNOW into guidelines; it's explicitly designed to be an IAR-style "fuck process, this is obvious" workaround. bdjeff, what's your view on this? Am I misunderstanding everybody here? -- nae'blis 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont want to nitpick, but can we start a new header? I dont want to move your comments to a new header without your approval first. SynergeticMaggot 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay by me. :) Welcome back... I feel like maybe we were all talking past each other yesterday. -- nae'blis 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I hope this is a refreshing conversation from now on. I also wish to know what Bdjeff thinks. I only mention him and MONGO since the first comment from Bdjeff was that I have his support in adding in a different wording other than SNOW, and that MONGO agree SNOW should be here anyway. If we can work to include something (I should say anything at this point)simular to reflect current closings on AfD, I'll be a happy camper. We need only work out the wording I suppose. Suggestions are more than welcome. SynergeticMaggot 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's where I got hung up yesterday; what situation(s) are you trying to describe that aren't already covered? Is it the "only 2/37/120 minutes remained in the 5 days" argument? The "no one but a procedural nominator said to delete" cases? Maybe let's look at some test cases that WEREN'T closed by SynergeticMaggot, to avoid all the hullaballoo/personalization...I'll start. -- nae'blis 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yikes. Theres two conversations in this. The first is what the test case represents. The second is the SNOW inclusion discussion. These are seperate issues yet were conjoined the other day. SynergeticMaggot 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. Should we discuss the SNOW/not-SNOW/SNOW-by-any-other-name here, and deal with the nominator's intent in the section above (exception to the exception)? Feel free to delete the test case below if so, I have to go for several hours... -- nae'blis 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Test cases that are not currently covered appropriately by 1-6
 * 1) When a nominator is bringing it to AFD but doesn't explicitly say "delete", do they have to explicitly withdraw before the case can be speedily kept? Articles for deletion/JDQ Systems is my example, as a Google search was inconclusive for me to support deletion when I nominated it. -- nae'blis 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?
Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"5. The nominator is renominating the article on some regular schedule." Which means what, exactly? Should it say "...on a regular basis"?  Dei zio  talk 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to explain it out, I had the same interpretation as you mention. I've also attempted to merge it into a general "disruption and vandalism" category, since that seems to be a common reason for quickly keeping a page. 68.39.174.238 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible modification of criterion 4.
Criterion 4 currently reads "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody recommends deleting it anyway (since calling a nomination vandalistic does not make it so). Examples of this include obviously frivolous nominations (Such as featured articles), nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (EG. A userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment) and making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." However, in practice some people have used simply a bad faith or disruptive intention of an initial nomination to justify "voting" speedy keep in AfDs. Furthermore, in a few recent cases admins have closed AfDs with speedy keep based on issues with the nominations. In at least one case - Articles_for_deletion/Jenny Morris (singer) the close occured despite the fact that the clear consensus was leaning towards deletion. If this sort of thing is that common we should either consider modifying criterion 4 to reflect actual practice or put something very clear in this guideline that such closes are not wanted. JoshuaZ 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support making very clear that early closes are inappropriate when an article is not clearly a stick-on keep. Articles must still demonstrate compliance with content policies regardless of the perceived faith of their nomination. I'm not suggesting limiting the discretionary powers of admins in AfD debates but in the highlighted debate the closing admin could at least have given a couple of lines explaining why the nom was bad faith. As at least one editor noted, it may have been nominated in bad faith but that didn't make it encyclopedic.  Dei zio  talk 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Applicability section grammar
I can't figure out what is supposed to be communicated by the second sentence in subsection two of the "Applicability" section: The discussion should be moved to on the correct place for deletion discussion, which may then decide what to do with it.. I would just fix it myself, but I'm not sure what the point is anyway. Matt Gies 11:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe what it's trying to say is that if, say, a template is nominated for deletion on AfD, then the AfD discussion may be speedily closed and the nomination and any comments so far copied to TfD. I'm not really sure if that even needs to be listed among the other reasons, though it certainly should be mentioned; the distiction is subtle, but I know I personally wouldn't close such a misplaced nomination as a "speedy keep", even if it technically is one, but as "nomination moved to XfD".  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the guideline to say more or less what I wrote above. Feel free to improve it. One thing I wonder about is whther the use of the page move feature should be advised over a cut-and-paste renomination for those deletion forums that use nomination subpages. It certainly seems like a reasonable thing to do, but explicitly describing the steps here could be seen as too much detail, while just recommending it without describing it in detail might encourage half-assed attempts. In general, I'd expect that if you know enough about how the deletion forums work to come up with the idea by yourself, you also know enough to do it without causing undue confusion. Still, maybe some brief mention ought to be made? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

snow
Is there a consensus to add "The closing admin just feels like it" to the list of reasons under 'Applicability'? —Random832 2007-01-29 14:03 UTC (01/29 09:03 EST)
 * Obviously not, but it is a mistake to view this as an exhaustive list that may not be deviated from.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does say only. And allowing "per WP:SNOW" without further justification is essentially to say "closing admin feels like it" is a valid reason—Random832 2007-01-29 14:16 UTC (01/29 09:16 EST)
 * It is a guideline. By definition, guidelines are not set in stone, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. The criterion is not "if the closing admin feels like it" but "if it would improve the encyclopedia" (per WP:IAR, an official policy).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Official, if not controversial. I'm actually kind of surprised that this (speedy keep) isn't policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does seem a little incongruous that our frequently misued speedy deletion is policy, while this, which is rarely misused, is not. -Amark moo! 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the current version, with the word only, has enough support to be made policy. I haven't had much recent experience with AfD, but it used to be that "speedy keep" was applied in situations where it wouldn't be allowed according to this guideline. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As is speedy deletion. So what? -Amark moo! 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy should reflect consensus. The fact that this guideline is not obeyed across the board indicates that it does not represent consensus and hence should not be made a policy. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then. We'll have to promptly demote WP:CSD. Then, due to out of process blocks, WP:BP too. Oh, and since that statement is diametrically opposed to WP:IAR, we'll have to do something about that too. Anything else? -Amark moo! 06:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for that is that CSD is far more important than this page. If you don't believe me, go and do New Pages Patrol for a while. Speedy deletion is a matter of quality control: there are certain classes of pages that are so obviously not encyclopedic and yet so ubiquitously added by novice or erratic users that we need to be able to get rid of them with a minimum of overhead. It is an old policy designed to keep repetitive and pointless AFD debates down.
 * Speedy keep, on the other hand, is only a matter of internal bookkeeping. It is pretty much an afterthought, and something we could do without since anything speedily kept would be regularly-kept three or four days later.
 * Aside from that, very often when "speedy keep" is cited in an AFD, it is cited incorrectly; that might be called "abusing" it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * CSD is no more important than this page is. And abuse of CSD is far more prevalant than abuse of speedy keep.  Rather than an afterthought, it's a function to keep people from abusive AfDs and deletions.  Hell, if we eliminated CSD, anything speedy deleted would be regularly-deleted three or four days later, right?  Great non-argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had expected a handwaving response from you - that is, unless you've got any evidence that abuse of CSD is "far more prevalent"? At any rate, you're missing the point, which is that if we eliminated CSD, anything speedy deleted would then need three or four days of lengthy repetitive needless discussion, thus wasting a lot of valuable editor time.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My reply was just a mirroring of yours, really. Meanwhile, check the talk page of CSD, you'll see a recent examination of A7 in particular.  I also didn't miss your point - there wasn't one to miss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very apt analogy, in that my reply was substantial and yours was just an image. You are, I hope, aware that most editors consider repetitive needless discussion a Bad Thing?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, please, by all means, stop. We'll be glad to build consensus in your stead. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefinetly banned user
In the case of Articles for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory (second nomination) if the nominator is later indefinetly banned does the AfD close speedy keep? Travb (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because other people concur with the deletion. See the second bullet point, "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Inapplicable section
I think Speedy keep will be cited more often when used incorrectly than when used correctly. Thus, I started an inapplicable section, using Coredesat's comment here. -- Jreferee 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Procedure
I gotta say, the organization of this section threw me off. I was following the procedure listed, but when I came to bullet point 4, realized I should not have been doing that. I think that bullet point 4 should be removed and its text integrated into the paragraph before the remaining bullet points in this section. --Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant bullet point 4, not 3 as my previous revision stated. --Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Do not delete if on main page" should be removed
This page currently states that if an article is linked to from the main page, it should not be put up for deletion. I disagree with that. Although you could say that putting a large deletion stamp on the featured article of the day is nothing more than vandalism, I do think that it should be possible to discuss deletion of articles that are linked to from other sections of the main page. It should be noted that these articles get most traffic, and therefore they should be good and notable subjects. If an article linked to from the main page shouldn't really be included in the encyclopedia at all, then it should be deleted right away, after editing the main page, because a lot of people would otherwise see that bad article.

Of course, it won't happen very often that articles that are on the main page are put up for deletion, but it might just happen. And when it does, there is no reason to not very closely take a look at the deletion request, unless it's simply an act of vandalism, like the Cynna Kydd case. —msikma (user, talk) 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I have added the criterion again. Get the link removed first, AFD second. Having an AFD tag on an article linked from the Main Page gives the impression that we are very confused about what we think is or is not important. AFDs for such articles are likely going to be very controversial, and as there is no deadline, can wait until the article is no longer linked from our public face. For an example, see here (endorsed here). Kusma (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't be deleted until at least 5 days after the AFD, (after which it will be gone from the Main Page), so the scenario you describe can't occur. What's wrong with just nominating it after it's off the Main Page? &mdash;  brighterorange  (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with nominating it then, but why? Is there some reason we should insulate people who browse the main page from AfDs? -Amarkov blahedits 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amarkov. What happened to "an article could be featured on the main page and be on AfD at the same time?" Yes, that's used as why notability isn't relevant to whether or not an article should be made an FA, but it's always been taken for granted that it was indeed possible. Also note that this line was added unilaterally by Celestianpower in August . --Rory096 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The main page and its linked articles are the public face of Wikipedia and deserve to look clean, yes. Articles that end up linked from the main page are chosen by experienced editors, so they are usually good articles. Allowing new visitors to edit them is good for the visitors and for the articles. Since they are high profile, they are vandalism magnets, but most kinds of vandalism can be immediately reverted by the many people that watch them. But an AFD tag can't be removed except via the speedy keep mechanism, so the speedy keep guidelines should allow special leeway for keeping main-linked pages clean. There is nothing so urgent about AFD that it can't wait until the next day (the process takes at least 5 days). &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the mainspace is the public face. Does that mean we shouldn't have AfD tags at all and should just carry out discussions in projectspace with no notice? AfD tags are not only a way to get more people into the discussion, it's a great way to show people our real processes and attract more contributors. If an AfD is obviously ridiculous, it can be speedy kept anyway per the second criterion. If not, then there's no reason why a link from the main page is even relevant. --Rory096 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't the public face of Wikipedia show AfDs? Are we trying to hide that articles get deleted? -Amarkov blahedits 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, apparently the thing which caused the criteria to be added was a nomination of that day's featured article, which is still covered here. Thus, I'm going to go remove it now. -Amarkov blahedits 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they should, because the tags are ugly and confusing to casual readers, are usually disruption when placed on articles off the main page, and casual readers who are not likely to have read Wikipedia policy probably shouldn't be participating in AFD discussions. But if obviously frivolous includes good articles linked off the main page, then I'm okay with the explicit main page criterion being removed. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, featured articles shouldn't be nominated. If something isn't notable enough for inclusion, you can't possibly source it well enough for FA status. It seems odd, though, that we allow all manner of cleanup templates, and even protection templates, on some articles linked from the main page, but a discussion about inclusion isn't allowed. -Amarkov blahedits 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why the AFD template is different is that it can't be removed. Anyone can remove other tags or fix the problems they indicate. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:PROD and WP:AFD
I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy which discusses (in part) changes to this policy. Please join the discussion. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new reason to the "Applicability" section
Sometimes a well-established article is wrongly nominated for deletion. This may occur when an editor has limited knowledge of the subject or has a particular point of view that does not accept current usage regarding a term. This happened with the Consensus decision-making article (see this RfC, and recently with Nonviolent communication (see this AfD. Yet there appears to be no way in policy or guideline short of WP:IAR to justify a speedy keep. I'm for adding a fifth reason to the "Applicability" section along these lines:


 * The article is an established article with citations and no one but the nominator believes it should be deleted.

Comments? Sunray (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The example AfD doesn't correlate to the statement you wish to add. Nonviolent communication was rescued. Sources were found and added only after the nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There were citations in the article, including one to the book itself. But maybe there is a better way of wording this. Would you be willing to work with me on this? Sunray (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might be right. I think what I meant was that more were added to merit its inclusion. But the statement makes it clear its a snowball/SNOW. I'm all for helping though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked at WP:SNOW. However, that is neither policy nor guideline and someone is likely to do exactly what BB did and revert the closure. His reason for doing so was flimsy, but someone might argue "just give it time." This would be hard to counter if there were fewer keep votes (which happens). Perhaps a better way to go would be to modify WP:DEL, but I tend to think that something along the lines described above, might be sufficient (and simpler). Sunray (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DELPRO isn't going to be changed until either WP:SK or WP:NAC is made into a guideline. If you honestly are looking to help, try looking over my page here and then go to my how to guide. I'm still working on it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * criteria 2 covers malicious nominations and the guideline says an afd tag is no big deal it gone in about 5 days, if anything it tends to be a positive as it encourages editors to expand and address concerns. Sunray raises three specific points in explain his reasons;
 * Sometimes a well-established article is wrongly nominated for deletion. if this was to occur then express your reason in the afd, most reasonable editors will withdraw the nomination when such any issue is highlighted. Alternative show how the article addresses the concerns raised there no reason to assume bad faith in such a nomination.
 * This may occur when an editor has limited knowledge of the subject how does one assess another persons knowledge of the subject, what is the distinction between limited knowledge and alternative POV.
 * or has a particular point of view that does not accept current usage regarding a term. where there are alternative uses of the term then its an issue over how to disambiguate the article names. Or do mean where any alternative POV exists but is excluded from the article in such cases NPOV is a valid reason to nominate an article.
 * IMHO such a change will mean that most AfD will be closed as speedy keeps within minute/hours of the nomination. Gnangarra 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense to list as a reason for speedy keep:
 * The article has been rescued (e.g. entirely rewritten) and is no longer the article that was nominated.
 * The Bed management AfD is an example: nominated when it had only 3 sentences and no references, it was relatively quick work to expand it using 6 authoritative references, so it became a speedy keep. Hopefully the Article Rescue and Intensive Care initiatives will result in more AfD'd articles being saved at the last minute like this. - Pointillist (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what a coincidence - I was just coming here to make virtually the exact same proposal following the discussion linked to below. Is anyone opposing this? It seems only common sense to add it to the list.--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose this for reasons spelled out in the linked discussion below. Plenty of editors say articles are heavily improved in AfD.  I see no reason that discussion and admin discretion can't determine that rather than turning it into a SK tripwire. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So maybe it should be worded differently: e.g. "the article has been altered in such a way that the reasons given for the nomination can be seen objectively no longer to apply". If that's true (of course all SK criteria rely on someone's adjudging them to be true) then there seems absolutely no reason to keep the discussion open, confusing anyone who may stumble across it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Speedy keep is supposed to be a clear, bright-line criteria.  something either meets SK or it doesn't.  IF there is room for discussion then discussion occurs.  I don't mean to treat the proposal so negatively but this sort of thing is important. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this proposed criterion is any less objective than existing criterion 3. No point in continuing discussion over a moot point. If the article still deserves deletion on other grounds, then it can be immediately renominated. This has the additional advantage of keeping the "votes" from the previous discussion (which are no longer relevant) separate from those in the new current discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin speedy keeps
This page seems to be in disagreement - or at least is misleading when compared with - WP:non-admin closure. I think one of them ought to be changed, but I'm not sure which. For simplicity let's restrict discussion of it to the other talk page (and see there for my reasoning). Olaf Davis | Talk 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Applicability
The list in WP:Speedy keep is introduced by "Reasons for a speedy keep decision include:". This phrasing is ambiguous as to whether the list is exhaustive. I favor a more restrictive interpretation of speedy keep, with a rationale like "keep, early close per WP:SNOW" taking up the slack. The specific terminology doesn't really matter since all keeps result in no action by the closer, but I see no harm or undue difficulty in being more precise. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:Criteria for speedy deletion are narrowly defined and applied. While avoiding an incorrect deletion is much more important than an easily-reopened AfD close, I would prefer a more consistent definition of "speedy".
 * WP:Non-admin closure lists SK and SNOW as separate bullets.
 * If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 05:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral nominations
"Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. "

I don't think this is a valid reason for speedy close. I have posted XfDs several times on behalf of someone where I myself did not have a position on the XfD. Usually this happens because someone clearly intends to nominate something for deletion, but is unfamiliar with our processes and has trouble completing the XfD process for whatever reason. Usually they have provided a rationale for deletion which I provide in the nomination, even if I remain neutral. I have never had one of these speedy kept before, and I don't think this is a normal practice to speedy close efforts to assist others in the filing of an XfD. If the intent here is to speedy close XfDs with no apparent rationale for deletion, then we should just say that. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be some sort of revision. The recent discussion WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 57 showed little support for SK'ing procedural noms, except when the nominator had just declined a CSD or PROD and was listing "for more input" without a belief that the article should be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a change to reflect that we don't speedy close good faith proxy noms, and tried to clarify that the real problem is a nomination that doesn't include a deletion argument at all. Gigs (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I revised it a little, mainly to preserve the numbering which is occasionally referenced. I think a single item covers these cases, as AfDs with insufficient nomination statements will be left open if a convincing delete argument is made separately. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't think of that. This version looks good to me. Gigs (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Early close"?
Is there a project page about that? 169.226.85.157 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be, unless you wanted to merge the pages on speedy keep and delete. You are taking an action every time you close a discussion, after all.  "No action" is the same as keep. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing (Criterion 1)
"No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination." Every so often, there is confusion over whether a nominator may withdraw regardless of the AfD's state, i.e. if there are other deletes. (There must be zero outstanding deletes, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48.) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588 is an example. As I wrote there, the only change I can think of is italicizing and. Flatscan (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think we need to split that criterion. I have done it in the past but it was remerged to keep the numbering of the subsequent ones the same.  I'm not sure that the numbering should be such a priority.  If it is, then we need to do this CSD style and strike repealed criteria.  I don't think we need to do that though, most people don't refer to speedy keep by the numbers.

Anyway:
 * 1) No one other than the nominator has recommended that the page be deleted and the nominator withdraws the nomination.
 * 2) The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging.

What do you think? Gigs (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we add "no one has recommended that the page be deleted" to your number 2. as well? If the nominator says to merge and then other editors come along and !vote delete it would seem silly to speedy keep on what amounts to procedural grounds, forcing those editors to reopen a new AfD if they want their !votes counted. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the current wording includes that for the 'nom doesn't say !delete' case - did you mean to include it Gigs? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

← Olaf Davis is right, the proposed (2) is not quite correct. If the nominator writes an invalid nomination (e.g., a merge only), the AfD can be SK'd immediately, but as soon as any user recommends delete, SK is taken off the table. I think the criterion could be rewritten as "there are zero arguments for deletion" and specific requirements A (no one else) and B (never made or withdrawn). The less common criteria are referred to by number, such as at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There are zero arguments for deletion:
 * 2) * No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and
 * 3) * The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination.
 * The zero arguments thing could be confusing. A withdrawn nomination still put forth an argument originally.  You see what I'm saying about the numbering though right?  We are artificially hamstrung here if we want to both preserve numbering, and avoid doing the strikeout thing that CSD does. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "zero active arguments"? I agree that it's not quite right, and my first preference is for the existing wording plus italics. I understand your point about flexibility in the numbering, but I think that the current criterion should not be split, even without considering numbering. Another point for consistency: criteria 1-4 have persisted since April 2007. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "zero remaining arguments"? Gigs (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still not quite right, but that sounds fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)