Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

I've noticed this happen to a few Gundam articles and I'd like to know how this can be avoided. I know it's allowable to recreate a deleted article provided the material isn't exactly the same as deleted content. Jtrainor 11:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, deleted pages are left unprotected because it is possible that another distinct concept exists under that name, or that a non-notable subject will gain notability. For example, if a high school student named Floyd Floydberg creates a vanity page, then a year later blows up his school, the article should be re-created.

I can imagine virtually no circumstances by which a specific model of fictitious giant robot would suddenly gain notability; don't re-create these pages. I realize that recent Gundam deletions have raised hackles, and I don't want to contribute to this, but fundamentally the otaku no Gundam need to realize that little or no non-trivial coverage exists in independent, reliable sources, and ultimately very few people care about arcane or trivial details of their hobby. If it helps, I am an avid chess fan, but I do not believe that we need an independent article on the Deferred Schliemann Defence to the Ruy Lopez, or the bayonet attack with the h-pawn, or even queenside castling, despite the fact that these are all the subject of non-trivial coverage in independent sources to a much greater degree than the Gundam articles being cut. Eleland 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4 is the applicable speedy deletion criteria. To avoid speedy deletion, the article must not be substantially the same. A common interpretation of that is that the new article must at least make a good faith attempt to overcome the reasons for deletion at AFD. Any article that doesn't do that could be nominated for speedy deletion by anybody who notices the old AFD. However, a check (what links here on the AFD) for a later DRV/AFD should be done, just to make sure the AFD is the last deletion discussion on the article. I know a few of those Gundam articles went through DRV a few months ago, but don't recollect the outcome, specific titles, or even month, so I can't really help you find those DRVs. If a particular article is being repeatedly recreated, it may need to be protected in a deleted status. GRBerry 03:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a tendency to do this. It seems that non-notable articles I encounter (and ones that I think are of poor quality) I get the urge to nominate for deletion, and so when I go on Wikipedia I get to see the results of one of my AfDs on average every second day or so, depending on how many I nominate.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done a batch every few days, recently. That's what AfD is there for, after all. Eleland 11:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Removing articles that do not belong is as important as creating new good ones, and improving existing ones. I come across lots in my categorizing hobby. I tend to use WP:PROD since many are very clear cut rubbish. Now that I am very familiar with the guidelines, and the results of other AFD's, it is pretty easy to spot the clear ones. Obina 11:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone double-check to make sure the documentation in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion is actually in-sync with the current workflow and functionality AfD? If no follow-up to this question comes around I will assume no one has taken a look at it yet. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 14:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It was in sync when I implemented the AfD categorisation system, because I updated it then, and as far as I know there haven't been any major changes since then except the change in listing order from top-down to bottom-up (which was mirrored on the template). (There was a major change to the internals of {{subst:afd}}, but as far as I know it shouldn't have affected the process for nominating an article at all.) However, a double-check would still be handy; I haven't nominated any articles to AfD for a while, and current practice may have change without me noticing. There's also an edit request on Template talk:Afd3 starter#Confusing edit-summary instruction which requests a documentation improvement; while double-checking the Template:AfD in 3 steps documentation, improving the documentation for that would also be helpful (it probably needs improving, but it's not certain what the correct improved wording should be). --ais523 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of requesting to add a task to SineBot since it's already roaming about AFD. It comes in response to single purpose accounts (SPAs). I figure it would be easy to tag very obvious SPAs by simply cross-referencing a user's contribution list with everything related to the discussion. If an account is extremely new and the only contribs have been to the article, its talk page, the AFD, or the talk pages of people voting in the AFD, I figure it would be safe to use {{spa}} on them-- particularly if the bot is going to add an {{unsigned}} anyway. With regard to IP user contribs, I'd apply the same logic, since it would err in benefit of the doubt should an IP address be shared or otherwise have prior contribs.

Anyway, please lemme know what you guys think about the whole idea. --slakr^\ talk / 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

... which reminds me: it should probably add {{Not a ballot}} should the unique sock count hit an arbitrary number or more (and the template or one of its sisters isn't already on there). I was thinking 3-5 was a safe bet. --slakr^\ talk / 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just closed my first AFD and CFD due to WP:FORUMSHOPing (nominator simultaneously requested an RFC/AFD/CFD on same subject.) Nominated at three places in what appaers to be WP:POINT/finding an audience. As this was my first time to close an AFD/CFD, I was hoping that a more experienced Admin could double check my work and make sure I closed them correctly. They were: CFD: Dharmic religions and AFD:Dharmic Religions. I left the RFC is open here.Balloonman 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Misapplication of policy, in my opinion. See note on user's talkpage here.Hornplease 05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for somebody uninvolved with the discussion to weigh in. Plus, I'm namely asking for input on if the technical aspects were correct. Making requests at 3 places for something is IMO an effort at WP:POINT---I could have accepted the AFD/CFD at the same time, but the RFC at the same time is what pushed it over the limit. The RFC is to determine if the term is a Neogolism, but that is what the AFD/CFD is promoting the deletion for.Balloonman 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There were several issues and I addressed each at the appropriate place. First the term is an obscure neologism, so it should be deleted. Hence the AFD. Nevertheless, the existence of an obscure neologism as an article does not hurt Wikipedia as a whole so much. The use of this neologism throughout many articles in Wikipedia does hurt Wikipedia as a whole. The RFC was designed to deal with that. What I did was not forum shopping but addressing different issues each at the appropriate place. I want to thank Balloonman for changing his opinions about my actions and re-opening the AFD. Matter solved as far as I am concerned. Andries 10:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been informed that all redirects to wiktionary are violative; therefore, the category, & all content, are in violation.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 07:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone mind fixing this? I was attempting to fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry McAfee and list it but appear to be doing a bad job of it, and now I can't move the right into place because it already exists. • Lawrence Cohen 05:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I think it's fixed now. Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 05:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

When AfD nominators use Google to back up they're argument, which in my opinion, is a fine option to take, can we not use quotation marks around the term or include a load of other jargon with it too? I don't know what others think of this, but I personally don't think it is giving the article name a fair chance. For example, if we typed in, say, "Mr. Bimbo" - that person who was supposed to have owned Morrisons for a while from 2003-2005" (excuse the crude example) it will get far less hits than if we just entered Mr. Bimbo. I know it's all in the name of refining searches, but we get a better picture if we looked at the whole lot? What do others think? Lradrama 09:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point of putting quotation marks around it. Children of Bodom gets nearly 1,000,000 more hits that "Children of Bodom", but some of these pages could simply contain the word Children and the word Bodom on the same page, which are irrelevant to what we want to look at. --Borgarde^talk 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The dynamic link for the words "articles for deletion log" in step #3 in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion is gone. Can someone fix this please. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

MZMcBride fixed it.[1] -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

== Please delete: Hebrew Bible views on women == OOPPPS! SORRY: Shir-El too 14:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The first rule of thumb on this project page is this: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. Many are not paying attention to this. I am seeing too many of what could be legitimate articles sent here for deletion 3, 5, even 7 minutes after creation. IMO, that is biting the newcomers. If there is any assertion of notability, please try and help the new editors by pointing them in the right direction of policy, tagging the articles, or helping to fix them yourselves. I've also seen the most rude ,ugly, judgemental, and hurtful comments on these debates. For instance, one nominator called a new subject "just an assistant-professor", well, how would they like to be called "just an immigration lawyer", as I'm sure just as much hard work went into both professions. These debates are getting much too personal and people should only be debating the subject with regards to meeting policy for inclusion and please consider how you would like to be spoken to or about if the situation was reversed and the subject was yourself. ♫ Cricket02 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What stunningly dullard ass-clown designed the process for AfD? Christ, there is not single, unified process (with templates) showing precisely what to do, step by step. I submitted the AfD for Making out, and I am quite sure I made a mess of it. I copied an AfD currently in place and simply substituted in the info I needed. Of course, it's in the wrong category. I don't mind doing the work, and woudl be delighted in doing something - an essay, any-%$^@&@-thing to keep any other soul from having to undergo what I am here.
Please, if there is a single, solid place that shows how to do this, perhaps SCREAMING it fromt he rooftops, or just putting it where folk can find it might be extraordinarily helpful. If I seem cranky, it becaus eI've been to at least 7 different pages related to AfD, and none of them say, 'this is how it's done, mate.' Wikipedia is supposed to be a damn sight easier to use than this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to note my agreement with the above (though perhaps without the angry frustration :) ) Wikipedia really needs a page that explains the processes and differences between speedy deletion, proposal for deletion and article for deletion. Perhaps such I thing exists, but I've never found it, and my understanding of the three has had to be constructed from reading a number of disparate articles and careful observation of the processes in practice. And I'm still not sure I understand it completely. The avoidable mystery surrounding what can be the most heated of issues within Wikipedia only leads to greater friction and misunderstandings. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Whenever an article is tagged for deletion using the {{afd}} template, there is a list of steps provided on how to create such entries without having to copy/paste content from other entries. Using that as a starting point, could you explain what the problem is with the process? --Aarktica 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is twofold. Firstly, you want to see the steps in full before you tag {{afd}}. It's nice to know exactly where you're taking things before you set out. Secondly, it needs to be clearer how this differs from {{prod}}. I'm not saying that guidance and resources to explain things aren't available, just that they could be unified into something clearer. I'm afraid in some parts Wikipedia suffers from a common documentation problem. Namely the person who designed the process (or is intimately acquainted with it) is not the best person to explain it, because they can't imagine being new to it anymore. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't get frustrated, as I have a doctorate, and I think it's complicated! It has its reasons, though -- it allows for community discussion, or peer review. It's often best to open up two windows to go through the steps. Bearian 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What I am looking for is a step-by-step process explaining what to do to properly file an AfD or CfD, with the appropriate links to advise of the side issues involved. Please take a look at Making out. I know I've cocked it up, and without all the "angry frustration" (which i must admit that I felt), I would really like to know how to do it the right way, so it doesn't go sideways for structural issues, or have to be fixed by some helpful soul.

I think that maybe some sort of collation of the steps into an article/essay would be super-fine, and may be what we really need to contemplate here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You would have been much better off using {{db-empty}} for such an issue... --Aarktica 00:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] That wasn't a cock-up, you did fine. All instructions can be found at WP:AFD, and at {{AfD in 3 steps}}. It really isn't that hard if you read the information given. Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I did, bc the AfD is shoing up in the mmusic category - the one I cloned was of a band. I think it would be nice to have the template (like one sees at WP:AN/3RR would be really spiffy. the AfD in three steps is a grand start, but wouldn't it be better to have a one-stop-shop thing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in one step - you can't tag an article with {{subst:afd}} and edit today's AfD log (or even WP:AFD, if we were to list them there) in one step. 2 steps maybe, if we remove the element of subpaging, but that would create nightmares for archiving, and would eventually lead to a situation where we have AfDs hiding at the bottom of WP:AFD, that haven't been closed for weeks. Not a situation we want. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly we can do this, and we should. some of the regulars have opposed because they use the various semi-automated helper programs available, but new people dont know about them and they do not run on everyone's system--they do not run on mine, to my considerable annoyance. So I have to do everything by hand, and I admit I therefore afd less often than i really ought to. surely we can manage to set it up as part of the interface as one single box.: Fill in the article name. Give the reason. select the type. all done.

As for knowing what procedure to use, there are so many different types of articles and reasons that a simple decision tree gets a little tricky. . In summary, it seems easy enough:

1. Can it be kept with a tag.? Then tag.
2. Can it be edited? then edit.
3. Can it be merged? then propose a merge.
4. Is it unquestionably junk: then speedy
5. Is it clearly deletable & unlikely to be defended, then Prod.
6. Otherwise, AfD.

The problem is that at each of these numbered steps there are dozens of possible considerations and reasons. Nobody should blame a beginner for getting things wrong--or even a experienced person for making a mistake. DGG (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I am in the same boat you are, most of those autobots work with PC's and I am part of the Apple bunch. Grr.

I am thinking that a process like you say might be helpful. maybe a single, long article having hyperlinks something along the lines of

• Can it be kept with a tag? (clicking on the link takes you to the section of the page that explains precisely what tags are available)
• Is it junk? (again, clicking on it would take you to the section of the page that discusses empty articles, or marketing cruft or whatnot. There would be other links describing how to deal with different types of junk, including appropriate tags, putting the AfD in the write section - Music, Society, etc).

Am I overthinking this? It seems this would be a helpful document to have around. I'd keep it on my user page and refer to it when needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, something of that sort could be done--and it already exists in a somewhat more verbose form: WP:Deletion policy and the references it gives. A reformatting such as you describe would be based on it.

but this would still just give the procedure. The really important things to learn is why something should be kept or deleted--the factors of notability, verifiability, reliable sources, encyclopedic nature, avoidance of advertising, avoidance of copyright violation, respect for the biography of living people, and all the other factors. WP:Notability and WP:NOT are in my opinion the best guides there, along with WP:Copyright. DGG (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course someone should have the correct reasoning for performing the AfD/CfD. That isn't the problem here. What is the problem is that once one knows that the item needs to be deleted, there is no single place to go to that contains all the rsources like templates, where to file and on which pages one has to cross-file, etc. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for the Apple person who chimed in above. Twinkle (WP:TW) does a great job at nom'ing things for AfDs. Works fine with Camino. (And usually w/ safari). --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought that when a {{prod}}ed article goes past the deadline, it's just deleted. If it's potentially controversial, then someone who disagreed with the prod would have removed the tag. Why, then, are there a number of articles being listed here with "expired prod, but may be controversial"? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Because under WP:PROD: "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion." At the cusp, some of these may be uncontroversial while some may find merit in retaining the article, the best way is to follow the next line at WP:PROD which says that "the article may be taken to Articles for Deletion to be discussed." Which I and others have done: someone needs to make the call whether something is controversial: we can delete it and wait for someone to request it to be restored (path of least resistance perhaps), or let the community have its say in the first instance (path of greater openness perhaps). Carlossuarez46 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But if not one editor has come along in those five days and removed the prod tag, doesn't that make it rather clear that it's not controversial? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But if the deleting admin (or anyone who reviews it) is unsure of whether to delete it or not, and wants a second opinion, that could be possibly construed as potentially controversial. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed expired prods before when looking through them, and sent the article to AfD instead. At that point, what I'm effectively saying is "I dispute deletion through the prod process because I believe more people should be involved in the decision on whether or not this article should be deleted." Since anyone can dispute a prod for any reason, the reviewing admin can dispute one for that reason, and the admin who reviews it ensures that at least one set of eyes other than the proposer's looks at it before it goes poof. Admins aren't bots. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, also it eliminates the possibility of a deserving but not often noticed article being prodded by some one just getting deleted because no one has noticed it in 5 days. If no thought process were involved a bot would just be used to axe these after 5 days - no if's and's or but's. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see that lots of people are involved in putting up articles for deletion for various reasons, but the amount of Wikipedians involved in the discussion can sometimes be frightfully low. A nomination with just one or two comments isn't really fair in my opinion. Lradrama 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Do you have a particular proposal in mind for addressing this issue? It seems like WP:CANVASS complicates the matter a bit. dr.ef.tymac 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that nominations with few comments are not fair. For that matter, I'd like to see more editors trying to fix pages rather than just putting them up for deletion. What happened to sofixit? Bondegezou 13:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The current Afd process seems to have the problem that it still functions like a vote, even though wikipedia technically isn't a vote. I propose as a slight change to the process to incourage more discussion and less voting. As an idea, we could eliminate votes, and instead just have discussion. Meaning comments like "keep" or "delete" should be removed. Sefringle^Talk 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But in the end someone has to make the decision. Pity the closers! -- Visviva 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia technically isn't a vote. But the only possible ways to organize input from more than about 5 people look very much like a vote. -Amarkov moo! 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea though, really consensus in other parts of Wikipedia and the World outside does not involve a vote nor an "independent" third party "deciding" what the consensus is. It would theoretically be possible to have the participants actually decide what the consensus was and close the discussion, only involving an admin if the consensus were to delete.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but during the discussion people would still use verbs like keep or delete. So it is still voting under the guise of conversation. Dr.K. 23:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how eliminating formal votes would improve the discussion. Fewer users would want to slug through more than a few nominations a day if they had to write complete sentences. Sometimes I find myself just saying, "per nom" or WP:SNOW. Bearian 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I have been reviewing AFD debates and a LOT of worthwhile articles are nominated and then deleted through this process. If there was a limit to the number of articles that could be nominated per day (say 50) this would probably help greatly. (1) It would free up admin time so they could concentrate on more important things. (2) It would concentrate the deletion process on the articles that deserve to be deleted for obvious reasons, not just cause someone thinks it "might" violate WP:THISORTHAT. (3) Nominators would have to be more careful on what they nominate, allowing other processes to fix what they do not like about pages, that is they could, instead of nominating, TALK to the main contributors and try to get the problem fixed BEFORE going to AFD. (4) This would of course lead to articles being improved instead of deleted all the time. Viperix 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The way to reduce the number of afd's is to expand the speedy deletion criteria to get rid of the 75% of Afds that are so obvious going to be deleted and end up sitting around for a week with opinions tracking (near) unanimous for deletion. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that doesn't address any of the other concerns, and the idea is to delete less articles not more. Viperix 20:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That will happen when less junk is written, and not before. I'm called an inclusionist, but I do not see how most of what is found of AfD can be saved. DGG (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been browsing AfD debates the last few days and it seems to me that a majority of articles under discussion should be kept. Moreover, I find it can take just a few minutes to actually improve articles, addressing the concerns raised in the AfD process. As others have said, what happened to the sofixit culture? I don't know that a limit is the way to achieve it, but I do feel we need more cleaning-up and less AfD debates. Bondegezou 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have previously suggested requiring a seconding of a nomination for deletion, similar to the process under Robert's rules of order. This would at least avoid the unnecessary deletion debates where there is not a single vote for delete. There are not that many, but they are all a complete waste. Basically this would fit within the current process, by having the nominator place the tag, but requiring another editor to actually make the listing and open the debate. This at least puts a basic check on the process, by making two people responsible for starting it. It may also help improve the quality of the discussions, since the second editor can clean up the nomination, and make sure it is on target, before a rambling discussion gets started on an unfocused nom. Dhaluza 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that motion. Bearian 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That could work, but only if at the same time a policy was put into place that made it mandatory for the nominators to tag an article for a week or two with the problem first. IE Warning: this article violates WP:THISORTHAT please fix it. Both would have to happen at the same time becauase your idea helps #3 above and the addition helps the rest of the points. Viperix 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I also supported requiring at least a post to the talk page stating concerns before moving to AfD. That would also eliminate many unnecessary noms. A tag may or may not be appropriate. The person seconding the nomination and starting the debate should check the talk page to make sure the nom is well founded, and that editors are not working on the problem already. I my mind, the person seconding the nomination would be responsible for being the level-headed one who dispassionately decides if there is in fact a valid grounds for deletion worth discussing. Dhaluza 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree that using tags is preferred over AFDs, this simply moves the clutter from one area (AFD discussions) to another (cleanup categories) without solving the issue. The rules for inclusion are relativly clear under WP:NOTE - subjects must at least be notable and contain an assertion of notability, and those that aren't will get deleted whether it's speedy or after a few months. For example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koala_sunday deleted a hoax article - if you go through tagging and then AFD, it won't stop deletion since it's obvious that it's a hoax. You could go through CSD, but that's still causes someone to go through the list of pages to delete (and also hoaxes weren't directly covered under WP:CSD, unless you count patant nonsense.)

The only way to cut down on junk articles is to make it more difficult to create these articles - for example, change the definition of new user to someone who made less than 20 edits or has been around for less than a week. By then, it should be obvious whether or not a given user is a serious contributor to Wikipedia. --Sigma 7 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the point is to stop deletion of hoaxes and hopeless cases. The point is to stop unnecessary deletion discussions that waste time and effort, and sometimes lead to wrong outcomes. By reducing extraneous discussions on articles that can be cleaned-up the contributors to AfD can focus on the ones that really need to be examined. Dhaluza 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear! Viperix 02:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The above referenced page and its contents are confusing to me. Could someone who understands the whole deletion process please take a look? Thanks! --Stormbay 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD closed, articles redirected. Thanks for finding this :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the AfD record? I remember someone said 20-something, before an article was deleted, anyone know the highest number? Is there anyway to monitor this record? Travb (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea. List of Battlefield 1942 mods has lasted five, and the last two were considered (wrongly, but I digress) POINTy keeps. They can last quite a long time. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The highest I've seen is GNAA, with 18 AfDs. I think there were actually more like 22; a few were deleted or otherwise lost. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for the info. Funny name. There was never more than 18 for GNAA[3] Check out GNAA's press release on the deletion, it recommends watching Gayniggers From Outer Space.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) is the closest I found.

Any one else can beat Gay Nigger Association of America with 18 nominations? Travb (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... there were like 22 23 nominations (according to the 23rd nom not 18th see edit history summary), yes. In fact, there used to be a template that listed the amount of times the article had been nominated. I am guessing there were some speedy close ones (like when people promised not to nominate it for deletion for six months or so). -- ReyBrujo 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And none would be able to stand that many AFDs. Angela Beesley could get some more nominations (considered she wanted her article deleted, and some Wikis in other languages already deleted it), but 18/23? Don't think so. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Was wondering if someone could look at this AFD.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGregor_State_High_School
When the nomination was made, it looks like the old AFD got tacked on to the new nomination, and not linked. I'm just not sure how fix it myself.--Cube lurker 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that an anonymous user "started" the new AfD, and I don't think he knew the proper process. That section of the AfD should be deleted and a new one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacGregor State High School (second nomination) should be created. Leebo ^T/C 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the malformed AfD and told him what he needs to do if he wants to nominate it properly. Leebo ^T/C 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Cube lurker 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place that deals with the discussion of mergers, splits etc? Simply south 19:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Discussions for mergers and splits usually occur on the relevant article's talk pages. You may put up a WP:RFC if there is a lack of input for a long time and would like more input. Please do not hesitate to contact me or request further assistance on this talk page if necessary. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Although some discussions do result in merges/splits, but it's not what we aim for ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this type always seem to take place on AfD, and action is duly taken if necessary. It's quite common. Lradrama 09:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but starting an AfD to force a merge/split is not proper. This is the same as taking a content dispute to AfD for "resolution". See: WP:ATD. Dhaluza 14:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. The ones at AfD are in effect compromises--often the best solution. But it would be much much better if people explored these possibilities outside AfD first, so as not to need the involvement of the general community. DGG (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole process is stacked in favor of the Deletists. IF the main contributors of the page log in during the five day time slot then they have a chance to argue their point. The main word being IF. Five days is incredibly short, possibly the amount of days should coincide with either the amount of edits an article has or the amount of words. The reason being some people put a lot of work into Wiki and the way the deletion process is now, a random person nominates an article then the Deletists vote to delete and if no contributors notice BAM its gone in five days. Finally there needs to be a way to enforce the "You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar; OR you agree with the consensus that has already been formed." Most posts on the nomination pages are "I agree with so and so" or they are by Deletists (IE people who vote for deletion but are not familiar with the subject being deleted) Viperix 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately WP time in general works against anyone trying to contribute without devoting several hours a day to it--it is not just AfD but the pace of discussions in general. Probably this is one of the reasons why WP is addictive--one is at an handicap otherwise. It will take a general change in attitude in the way some people work. Even so,I would strongly suggest accommodating more general contributors with a wider range of interest by extending the time to 7 days. (I think thats the most that would be practical at present) There is a lot to lose by confining effective participation to the regulars. DGG (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an extension of time is needed. Even 7 days is very short in holiday periods (not everyone does what I do which is to check that the hotel has a public computer before booking :-) ) TerriersFan 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We are in need of an extension in time for voting.--SJP 05:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A time extension could be a good idea. Another approach is to do more to bring AfD discussions to the attention of editors familiar with the subject area. Recently, I've tried mentioning an AfD on some related article's Talk page to get more input into the discussion and/or to get more editors to improve the original article. The result is often dramatic and in favour of keeping, which suggests to me to many articles are getting deleted by people with no specialist knowledge in the area. Bondegezou 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it hurt anything to make the default 7 or 10 days, rather than 5? • Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It would keep alot of crap (hoaxes and the like) even longer on Wikipedia. There are very few discussions to which anything relevant is added after the first three days or so, and discussions with little input often get a second run of five days anyway. I don't see the benefit of extending the period to an equally arbitrary seven or ten days, we have DRV for the few cases where it would have made a difference already, and articles where new reliable sources (not previously added and/or discussed during the AfD) are found can be recreated. An AfD (whether it ends in keep or delete) is not definitive, although of course it shouldn't be willfully ignored either (which no one here suggested).Fram 08:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles you mention could still be Speedy deleted, So they would not necessarily stay longer. Most of the Hoax articles I have seen were speedy deleted on day 2 of AFD or sooner. I disagree that relevant info is not added. What if a person shows up on day three? Is that persons opinion not worthy? And DRV is mostly for mistakes on the closing admins part, not for a continued debate, IE a person who had wanted to participate but came in late wouldn't be able to go to DRV and say but I have an opinion too. Viperix 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand it would keep a lot of crap around longer, but would allow for some more visibility into the borderline issues, and for more eyes to see them. Would that benefit outweigh a borderline article getting another 1-5 days worth of traffic? What harm in simply drawing out the maximum possible time frame, somewhat? • Lawrence Cohen 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article, but it will not let me create a new AFD. Can anyone help me? And before I go forward with the nomination, what is everyone's thoughts on this? I like South Park as much as the next guy but I see no reason for something like this to be included in an encyclopedia. --Endless Dan 13:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but I see the previous AFD was 11-2 for KEEP. If I were to put this up again, I'd want to have a solid policy based reason for deletion, something more substantial then "I see no reason..."--Cube lurker 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is insane - I came across it while looking at new users/pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagenis I cannot bear to read the article on Articles for deletion, so I'm posting it here. 24.41.11.233 03:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)eh

Speedy deleted as nonsense. Hut 8.5 12:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please? User:Krator (t c) 12:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be a silly question but I couldn't find the answer anywhere. How does the voting system work? I'm asking this because the stoner music article was nominated for deletion (see here), most votes were delete but the final result was redirect. How can this be? Thank you. Kameejl ^(Talk) 09:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a vote. It is a discussion. Example scenario: Two experienced editors make the right call based on applicable guidelines and state why article X should be deleted, but ten fanboys and meatpuppets drop by and say "Whaaah! Don't delete this cool page. You're all mean!" It has been established that it should be deleted, so what is the result going to be? Adrian M. H. 10:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow my reply got deleted in that, so here it is again: Admins look at all the comments and decide whether they indicate a consensus, or whether there is no consensus (in which case nothing happens). The comments aren't 'votes', in that numbers don't have much of an effect; two comments saying the same thing are only given marginally more weight than one of them by itself would be. Comments are also weighted according to the strength and basis of the arguments expressed in them. --ais523 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate this page for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotzapp

It looks like it's purely posted for promotional/SEO purposes. There's no real value here for users and it's not even a social network I've heard of. They seem to be using it as their company's press page.

J7000 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to read this section first. It will show you how to do this, if you want to. However, that article subject appears notable, so it won't be deleted for not being notable. It may need clean-up, though. • Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

After discussions on the wikien-l mailing list, I am floating the following proposal for a change in the period of AFDs.

Details TBD, but in order to ensure that Wikipedians who may not have time to review AFD more often than on weekends get a chance to review articles listed on AFD prior to deletion, I propose that the length AFDs are posted for be extended to 7 days (168 hours) minimum prior to closure as delete.

I had originally thought that perhaps 6 business days was easier, but I think that 7 calendar days is the simplest approach to accomplish the desired goal.

Additionally, deletion policy is to be ammended to prohibit article deletion WP:SNOW closures before the 7 days are up. This is to ensure that someone with a valid keep reason who only reads on weekends is able to have their say despite a strong initial delete turnout in the "early !voting". This would not prevent SNOW keep closures, only deletes.

These two changes are intended to reduce the risk that good content will be deleted because the appropriate persons didn't notice the deletion.

Slowing down AFD incrementally in this manner should improve the process' accuracy, without unduly impeding the deletion of legitimately bad articles which do not meet WP pillars, policy, or guidelines. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, the notification discussion above is another good idea. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC) )

I like this idea. What is the rush? • Lawrence Cohen 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ALthough I don't see the need for the seven instead of five day period, I can live with it. I do oppose the prohibition of SNOW deletions, since these are often useful to get rid of blatant hoaxes and stuff like that. There is no speedy category for these, but they don't need to be kept open longer than needed. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 1, there were 99 debates, of which 10 were closed as speedies, and 2 as a speedy snow (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"a nowak", neologism, another category without a speedy possibility, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Arce, a non notable biography which could well have been speedied). Are there indications that WP:SNOW is misused (deliberate stifling of debate by it), or that it is often used in error ([[WP:DRV overturns mainly about snow closures?) Or is this a solution looking for a problem? By the way, I have seen very occasionally early flurries of "keeps" which turned out to be mistaken as well, so it would be only logical to either prohibit both or to allow both. I suggest to split the discussion on both proposals, as they are not really linked to one another. Fram 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the two proposals should be split. I don't really have much opinion about 7 or 5 days for AFD. Of course, given the customary closing lag time, the non-obvious ones are normally getting 6-10 days already, so I don't see it actually changing much.

WP:SNOW closes are applications of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to take the "right" action early when it is obvious. I can't see how anyone can write a rule that would trump WP:IAR, but if you can do it, I'll by happy with that precedent. As a DRV regular, I can say that purportedly incorrect WP:SNOW closes are not a major fraction of the DRV workload, and purportedly incorrect WP:SNOW keeps show up about as often as purportedly incorrect WP:SNOW deletes. Right now, the only WP:SNOW closure currently under review is an MfD keep. GRBerry 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The logic is that we want to prevent "the right people" from being excluded from the initial AFD debate. For example, say, a mostly idle article author, who on learning that there's an AFD realizes that he can put four good book / periodical citations in a currently not well documented or notable article, and does so. Non-experts looking at the article and policy will probably !vote to delete, but the right person adding the citations can change the !votes around rapidly by improving the article. If you look at enough AFDs over time, this is a discernable pattern - lots of deletes, then someone fixes it, and it changes to a keep. Some fraction of potential saves like that go wanting, because the person who can fix it doesn't notice in time. We want to avoid that... Even if it's rare. Georgewilliamherbert 03:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding SNOW/IAR - We can put down a rule redefining "obvious", pursuant to being policy-wise aware that there are cases of the above scenario where the right intervener saves an article via improvement. Truly absolutely obvious things can be speedied anyways (and, if that turns out to be a mistake, the recovery is less painful than a DRV et al). If it got to AFD, "the right thing" is to allow the !vote to complete. Georgewilliamherbert 03:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the true reasons for having the process of speedy deletion are removing real junk quickly before it gets seen widely, and short-circuiting elaborate process in obvious cases. But once something gets as far as afd it has already been seen fairly widely, and all the elaborate process is already under way. its easier and safer to continue it unless really obvious. But another alternative is to permit SNOW keeps. They do no harm, for there can be another AfD, and to provide that SNOW deletes can be reverted at the request of any editor in good standing. DGG (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support 30 days. A.Z. 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles listed here look more like a vote than a discussion to establish consensus. For example, if one person says delete as it fails WP:N. Everyone just seems to follow this. In my opinion, it is too tempting to look at opionions others have raised and to just make the same point without actually looking into the article, doing google tests etc. Closing admins may also simple look at the bolded bulk of deletes and delete. Does anyone else agree that it should be more like a discussion on the problems with the article and users should also raise their own points about what has been said instead of simply stating delete or keep as per above. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that a similar point has been raised before and I know that similar points have been raised in other project areas such as WP:RFCN but not much action ever seems to take place. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Arbcom was ratified by a pure majority vote, and nobody complained. People treating lack of voting as some historical tradition of Wikipedia are mistaken. -Amarkov moo! 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Im saying that alot of discussions throughout wikipedia including AFDs just seem to be turning into votes. Is this right? Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They are turning into votes in the sense that the number of people who support something is important, yes. But that's fine, because the alternative is the number of people who support something not being important. There's no super special system that can produce results that most people agree with while simultaneously deciding against the majority. -Amarkov moo! 20:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MISSING - exercise your writing muscles and show you can also create something that would never see AFD - David Gerard 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been 2 proposed deletions made for the writer and actress Vanna Bonta. Both seem bogus and unsubstantiated and make flkay and lame claims. How can situations like that be avoided when it's obviously trolls?!

I personally have made entries to the Vanna Bonta related articles including references of various newspaper articles, interviews, reviews -- checking on the users who proposed "Vanna Bonta" article and also "Quantum fiction" article for deletion, it's notable that they have made entries of debatable social relevance, that they are timed and orchestrated in tandem.

What do we need to do to remove the proposal for deletion? And how can trolls be prevented from trashing celebrity or personality pages? And aggravating fans!? Thanks Tikka72 —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I nominate the following article for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_(film)

There is no press for this. No reviews online. It sounds like the filmmaker created this wiki page to promote his home made movie. Wiki shouldn't be used to promote films. Because of the lack of press, or any sources to verify any of this articles claims about the movie's budget and details, then it's an useless article. I have proposed the small press publisher Titus Books for deletion as I believe the page is an advertisement for selling goods. It even lists the soon to be released titles. Any thoughts?

Could somebody please put Monday Night Mayhem up for deletion as failing reliable sources and verifiability requirements? Due to my lack of an account (and lack of a wish to make one) I do not have the capability to do so? Nevermind, disregard this post: I thought this was an internet radio show but apparently it has radio syndication.

First, this looks legit, and second, I found out about it on the Comic Con site. Therefore, deletion shoukld be denied. NoseNuggets 5:19 PM US EST Mar 2 2007.

How come you guys deleted Zeitgeist_The_Movie? I cached it on google and it seemed long and detailed and now the page is protected? What gives? Here is the cached version:

http://tiny_url.com/325bhk

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbutter (talk • contribs) 16:16, July 16, 2007 (UTC)

Surerly this is an interesting concept - where else can one look up such a list?

enginemanEngineman 09:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone WP:SNOW that please, for the good of all that it sane? Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If a. the notification is done automatically and b. editors having done little changes to the article are not notified, then I would see really no problem with that. WP:BOTREQ? Tizio 09:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link, thanks for posting it. It would be a good tool for notifying contributors, but unfortunately it needs to be done manually for now. Dhaluza 10:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to be done manually for now, it should be required -- the process is totally unfair to occasional contributors without it. There will undoubtedly be comments that it is burdensome--fortunately, those who will feel most burdened are those who are most familiar with WP and best able to organize the writing of an acceptable automated procedure. We have tolerated this gross violation of basic decency far too long. Is there--finally-- enough support to require it in the deletion policy? DGG (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BOTREQ, please! There's currently a note on {{afd}}, but that really isn't enough...a bot would be awesome (a la the bot that notifies speedies when you forget to do it yourself). I'm leaving a note at BOTREQ, see here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, the articles contribs should be able to explain why their article violates WP:THISORTHAT and whether or not it could be fixed. Viperix 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I continue to believe this is not a requirement. I have no objection to a bot, provided it has clear opt OUT mechanisms. But lets not ever pretend that a failure of notice is a signficant procedural flaw. GRBerry 02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is! How many articles could be saved if someone put some work into them - deletionists are running amock with "fails WP:DELETEMECOSIEXIST" simply because nobody knows the article is at AfD, and therefore nobody goes and improves it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If an article is capable of being improved, it probably shouldn't be at AfD in the first place. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but look at how many articles are improved and kept after the AfD or DRV. We have too many people who have neither the vision to see how an article can be improved, nor the motivation to actually do the work, running around as self-appointed wiki-critics starting AfD on articles because they don't like the way the article exists now. I think one simple step is to require these critics to make their objections on the article talk page first, rather than airing their complaints on AfD. AfD should not be the first step in the process of deciding what to keep and what to toss out. This is also a basic courtesy, just like notifying the article contributors (after discussion on talk fails to find a reason to keep), and notification should also be mandatory, whether done manually or automatically. Now that we have a tool that can easily and objectively identify the major contributors, there is no reason not to do this (other than deletionists not wanting to hear arguments from the other side). Dhaluza 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Awhile back I was looking for an article that I had contributed to, only to find it deleted. It would be great if a message appeared on your talk page when an article you have worked on is being considered.--George100 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. It's fine if this needs manual work rather than being automated as AFD initiation seems too easy currently and this encourages frivolous use. Colonel Warden 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So, this can be automated? Is at least notification of the creator automatic? I noticed that Twinkle, when I use it, does that automatically. Could a bot automatically notify the top 3 to 5 contributors to a given article if it is nominated? It would seem to be very useful. I'll post this as a suggestion for the Twinkle staff as well. • Lawrence Cohen 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It an difficult algorithm to produce to generate a good list of major contributors, the most efficient way I can see is to count number of days relative to current day the editor has edit the page, for example this formula: where E is if user edit the page at that day (0 or 1) and i is the day in question, from day one to now. Example: if the editor made ten edit on day 4 and three edits on day 13, and now it's day 34, he would get a editabillity point of , i.e. the same weigth as someone made only one edit, but on day 17. _→AzaToth 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just an ignorant question not knowing the full limitations and needs of the TW tool, but wouldn't it be practically simpler to do a simple count of the history and then sort by the Top 5 users, and then notify them as well as the article creator, and then have TW also do a deletion sorting notification? That would cover a tremendous amount of visibility... • Lawrence Cohen 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be a rather missleading value, as someone made 40 edits one day two months ago would then have a higher value than someone made one edit each day the last month. _→AzaToth 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, true... in general, though, would this be an implementable idea? • Lawrence Cohen 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, based on this, if TW sent an AfD for it:

http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Main_Page

The notifications would go PFHLai, Monotonehell, Brian0918, David Levy, Raul654, and TwoOneTwo (page creator), plus whatever Deletion Sorting option the TW user may specify. That's what I had in mind. • Lawrence Cohen 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, this page states:

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.

If this should be changed or deleted is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Deletion request notification. — Sebastian 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there an AFD policy that allows for speedy closure of AFD debate if an article is renominated within a short period of time after surviving an AFD? I don't mean AFDs where there was no consensus or no discussion on previous nomination. For example on today's AFD there's an article nominated that just survived AFD (and via a near WP:SNOWBALL to boot) less than 2 months ago. And I've seen it happen on numerous occasions where someone has renominated an article over and over until they get the result they want (a blatant violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And of course memories are still strong of the worst offender of the lot, the repeatedly nominated GNAOA article (I won't spell it out: first word is "Gay"). So does such a policy exist? If not, there should be one that puts a moratorium on renomonating an AFD-survived article for, say, 6 months or so. That also allows ample time for articles that conditionally survive AFD (i.e. on the assumption improvements are made) to address whatever issues exist. Perhaps a "commented-out" note can be placed at the top of AFD-survived articles to indicate to anyone about to place the AFD (or PROD) tag that the article survived AFD on such and such a date and cannot be renominated until such-and-such a date. I sure someone can create a bot to do that. Thoughts? 23skidoo 15:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely something like this should be the rule. There has not been consensus before, but there should be now. I think the simplest requirement is to make it exactly symmetrical with deletion: A non-consensus close may be reopened at any time. A keep close may be reopened only with permission from Deletion review. Fair's fair in both directions. Yes, consensus can change--so in that case, perhaps after 6 months or a year an article can be renominated without deletion review, but then an article should be able to be reinserted without deletion review just the same way. I would like to see some argument for why it should not be just the same in both directions. The goal is not to remove content, but to remove bad content, and we can do this best if we do not repeat discussions once we have finished. If this is too radical, then lets say , not reopen after a keep within 6 months without deletion reviews, as the first step. I can so no argument without it, except for those who think that the bias should always be to delete. (which is fact is against even current Deletion policy--the default if undetermined is to keep). DGG (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn skippy! although it should be a year after the AFD process. Like DGG said, consensus can change, but re-nominating an article after consensus was achieved just to get another chance at your goal is pitiful and un-excusable behavior. An article I was very interested in was deleted recently, what I ask would happen if I recreated it. If you guessed speedy delete you would be correct, and re-noming an article over and over is no different, it should be speedy-kept. Viperix 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for such a rule (please, we don't need more rules), if people renominate an article soon after a Keep AfD and they don't provide a very compelling reason to do so (sockpuppets in previous one, copyvio, false info provided, ...), they are most of the time easily and swiftly told where to go with their AfD (though always civilly, of course :-) ). If they just keep on doing it, they will get warned (and if needed blocked) for a WP:POINT disruption anyway. While in most cases a fast renomination is a bad idea, no rule is needed. As it already says in the deletion policy: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Nothing more is needed. Fram 11:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've generally noticed that when something is renominated shortly after it's first attempt, it does get speedily kept for this exact reason. The 6 month idea of DGG above is WAY too long... I think 2-3 months is more than enough time for reconsideration after a failed AFD. (Although, a no-consensus verdict can, IMHO, be renominated immediately---but even then, I'd wait a few weeks to let the crop of current reviewers change.)Balloonman 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought of the 6 months as a minimum--obviously, we need some experience. But three months would certainly help, and would deal with the real POV-pushers, so lets start with that: 3 months after a keep. I agree that it should not apply to no-consensus--since the option to a no-consenus is often just a continued listing, perhaps there should not be a fixed minimum. (Incidentally, I think that in any relisting, the original commentators should be re-invited--and, generally, additional ones requested at appropriate project pages. It gets to be like jury-shopping otherwise. The reason for a fixed minimum time is that anything other than that will simply be ignored. There should always be the alternative of taking to deletion review if something essential like copyvio or blp is uncovered. DGG (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why have a time limit at all? If a deletion discussion results in delete, you generally must go to DRV to get the article undeleted (yes, I know it can be re-created from scratch, but that is simple editing, which can also be done on an article that is kept). Why not a similar rule for a keep? Why is one community consensus treated differently from another? I agree that a no consensus is a no consensus, but a consensus should be respected all the same. This might also have the side benefit that it would discourage frivolous nominations, where people just throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks, because a poorly researched nom that resulted in a keep would need a DRV to start a new AfD. The process would be similar: someone would have to get consensus for an argument that the previous discussion was defective, or present new evidence or a new argument to overturn the keep and start a new AfD discussion. Consensus is consensus, and overturning it should require a new consensus, regardless of the previous outcome. Dhaluza 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not creep along here. In practice, some recreations are allowed without a DRV, and some are not. In practice, frivolous renominations are often speedily closed. I don't see the need for hard and fast rules, required re-invitation of previous participants, or anything else (if that were required in cases of no consensus, we're just asking for repeated no consensus results). While I agree there's a bit too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT out there, there's a thousand times more issues with WP:ILIKEIT. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with those who feel we don't need another rule. In this case we do. On too many occasions I have seen articles that have survived AFD through Keep consensus simply get re-opened and then the consensus becomes Delete, and often it's because the people who voted Keep before weren't aware the article had been renominated. I just see too much "gaming" of the system, either through good faith (people not aware the article had already survived AFD) or through trying to push an agenda. Not everyone is aware of the DRV process and that's not the point, anyway. I'm talking about articles that are kept and are renominated within simply too short a period of time. All this said, the fact the previous nominations are now being signified automatically is a big help. I have on a number of occasions voted Keep based upon the fact an article has been renominated too quickly -- but that's not always the strongest argument. Maybe what's needed is a version of DRV for articles that survive AFD. 23skidoo 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The version of DRV you are looking for already exists, and can be found at WP:DRV, as a challenge to the closure of an XfD. However, DRV regulars are well aware that an article can be nominated again after a suitable time, so for keep/merge/no consensus XfD results, the claims for review that are very likely to gain traction are 1) closer misread the consensus already in the XfD or 2) closer forgot that policy (not a guideline) required deletion.

If we introduce a rule against repeat AfD nominations, the natural consequences will be 1) to have more DRVs seeking the overturn of keep/no-consensus XfDs and 2) DRV will be more likely to overturn keeps and no-consensus. I thus fail to see how a rule will limit repeat nominations; it will just shift them to another forum that normally draws significantly less attention. GRBerry 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of not using out-dated HTML, I think <del> should be used instead of <s>, and changes should be made to this article to make future readers use it. The same effect is achieved, and it's more semantic. What's more, in inserting text, <ins> should be used over <u>. For example, if I make a mistake then I can correct it. — metaprimer (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Posted to Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion as well, simply because I'm not sure where this is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Cohen (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've been looking through Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, and I'm fairly concerned about it. Virtually all of these people are allegedly "notable" for a sole event: having been captured by the United States government for alleged terrorism or terror-related activities. Nearly every single article, hundreds of them, is the same. I sent three to AfD yesterday (I could have merged them all into one AfD but I wanted each reviewed independently in case I was mis-reading things):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh

I would venture, from reviewing at least 50 casually today, that

1. WP:BLP1E applies in virtually all cases. The articles are not biographical in any real sense.
2. Each is allegedly "notable" for having been captured by the US government.
3. All sourcing is functionally primary-only.

I compared it on the AfDs to, "the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something. We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney."

I think that per our policies as I've read them, we could conceivably delete hundreds of these BLP violating articles on non-notable people under AfD. However, I'm not sure how best to approach this. Virtually every single article was created by User:Geo Swan, and he already seems somewhat annoyed at me for having processed AfDs on a few of these articles. I'm not sure if launching an AfD with over 600+ articles is the right way to do this, but these articles seem to be inappropriate for us to have.

My questions: what should we do with this? Sending them off to AfD a few at a time each week would be pointlessly slow, repetitive, and just lead to hours of repeated statements (again, each article is the same basically--insert a new name, with a minority having different traits and sources). Speedy deleting out all articles in the category would be bad, as I would venture something like 5%-10% would certainly pass AfD and would require inspection. Should I just review each, make a massive list, and then send them all (easily over 200-400 articles) to one very long-running AfD? Any advice would be appreciated. • Lawrence Cohen 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you should not AFD them. The WP:BLP1E argument you are endorsing would say to merge them to a common article. As such, an AFD nomination would be contrary to your expressed opinion, and violate WP:POINT. What you should do if you hold this opinion, per {{sofixit}}, is start actually implementing the merge yourself. We've also had test cases before. See User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion for prior deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli for one of those where merge was most thoroughly discussed. I've discussed merging with GeoSwan a couple times in the past, and while I do believe they should generally be merged, I have no interest in doing the work myself. GeoSwan doesn't believe that the merged article is viable (way too long), see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani and the test merge at the multiple sub-pages of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. GRBerry 18:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the analogy to a criminal prosecution is far too weak. Criminal prosecutors operate under some level of oversight, and can expect to be sued or even charged criminally if they over-step the bounds of the law. These "articles" are more like bios of gulag prisoners based on rumours released to the media by anonymous Chekists. It's a disgrace to the 'pedia. I would suggest a mass AfD, which will probably result in "no consensus" and a DRV followed by further dispute resolution, but them's the breaks. <eleland/talkedits> 19:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Eleland--he advocates a procedure biased towards his view of the articles, which i think profoundly wrong. That the US has detained these people is a matter of individual international concern for every individual one of them. It is fairly obvious from the matter presented in the articles that the "Checkist" statement of the evidence against them in many cases would not lead a reasonable person to think them guilty--though for the three articles nominated first there is a good possibility that one might think otherwise. these are fair articles, drawing no conclusions about guilt and showing no bias. The previous ed. raised the argumentum at Stalinum, a variant of Hitlerium. the processes of the US in this matter must be seen in their own light--even thinking the worst, there is more material public at this point than was the case for almost all of Stalin's victims at the time of their "trials". Even for the show trials, there was no real defense. I am a little puzzled at the accusations of POV creation--is it being alleged that the POV is to have this material here in order to help them, and simultaneously that the material presented is prejudicial to them in terms of BLP? I do not see how they are both true. the POV seems to be a desire to present encyclopedic information about people who have become invovled in a notable way with matters of great public concern. DGG (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of concern, but each individual does not warrant his own article. In fact, just posting an article on each invites people to pile on unverifiable information for those who were not individually notable enough. Send them to AfD in batches with a note for each regarding the main non-Gitmo claim of notability to help the AfD evaluators. Doczilla 10:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly oppose any batch nominations, unless for a batch where none of them has any possible claims whatsoever. It does not reassure me that some of the first nominated were those where there was in fact some other notability--for the things which had gotten them into Gitmo in the first place, if nothing else DGG (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close this, Conncensus is already established for delete Jack The Pumpkin King 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article in question was deleted for failing to comply with the project's verifiability policy. --Aarktica 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Patience . . . Doczilla 10:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of having a Afd discussion among editors, if a single administrator is merely going to make a decision. The discussion about Prince Pierre of Orléans resulted in five Keep votes and five Delete votes - but Sandstein decided that that meant "the result was delete all." I showed that when this child was born there was a four page article in one of the most popular French weeklies. Clearly we should have just asked Sandstein first and not wasted our time with a discussion. What standards are there for administrators closing these debates? This is not the first time I have seen an administrator just decide things based on his own opinions. What would have happened if another administrator had closed the debate? Would the result have been different? Noel S McFerran 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always list this for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review for this specific case. • Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You can also contact the Admin directly. I've done that before and the Admin reconsidered his decision.Balloonman 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

m:Edit Wikipedia Week is happening.

A perennial press story is "I was bitten as a n00b on Wikipedia" - every random interaction with a random en:wp editor is taken as representative and officially sanctioned.

So we need people to be on extra special good behaviour.

(For those about to point out to Mr Pot that he is of similar blackness to Messrs Kettle, Jimbo emailed me directly asking me to please be much nicer on wikien-l in particular. And I can't say it wasn't deserved. *cough*)

Main sticking point I can see is notoriously prickly individuals who are also notoriously good encyclopedia writers. I won't go so far as to name any of those who spring to my mind, but I'm sure you have your own list. If they can be convinced this is a good idea then they should provide a suitably shocking example of niceness.

Also, have to hit the village pump, the admin boards etc. Those who do lots of janitorial work cleaning out the sewers of en:wp (vandal-chasing, newpages patrolling, RC patrolling, etc) and basically see the bad side of people all the time need to be brought on board as well. This is somewhere n00bs can really be bitten.

Ideas please? Not doing this is not likely to be an option. n00bs will be actively recruited, and it's absolutely vital everyone understands why it's bad to react in the obvious way to the blithering depths of human stupidity. - David Gerard 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What you say??? --Aarktica 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Any idea as to how this will be promoted? If there's no simple way to tell everybody, that week could go down in history as Newbslaughter Fest. Doczilla 05:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If n00bs are going to be recruited, could there a prominent notice on someplace n00bs won't typically see, like Watchlist pages, that people who shouldn't be biting n00bs here can't dismiss and ignore? Like our current fundraising note, but without the dismiss button? Maybe also quickly and neatly crackdown on people being prickish to n00bs as well who won't get on board? • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think a prominent notice like that would be most prudent. Doczilla 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It there any way of checking if an article is considered notable enough to be on here before creating it? Buc 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no nice, neat way to check it. Refer to the information at the top of the article's talk page because you may see that it has received a rating as mattering. You may need to check with participants in a relevant WikiProject. Refer to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Familiarize yourself with past discussions of notability in the AfD pages. Ultimately, though, you use your best judgment. Doczilla 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are multiple sources independent of the subject itself, it's most probably notable enough. --ais523 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past few weeks Charles has proposed as Afds a number of individuals who are descended from royalty but whom he considers not to be notable. I've voted in favour of deleting most of these articles. Yesterday Charles edited a number of articles of similar individuals by redirecting each of them to another article.[4] I wrote to him about this matter and he replied that he had done it on the advice of an administrator. I consider it inappropriate for an editor to unilaterally delete an article by redirecting it to another article. I think it more appropriate for other editors to be able to discuss this matter and for the community to come to a consensus. I am not debating the notability or lack thereof of these individuals, merely the process used. What do others think? Noel S McFerran 13:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think as long as one-liners are directed appropriately to a list and valid information isn't lost, discussion is neither needed nor efficient. It's easy enough to remove the redirect on the original article and add more information if desired. -Bikinibomb 13:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what is happening here. There is information on the original page which is being redirected, and that information is not duplicated on the page to which it is now redirected. If there were Afds, I'd probably vote "delete" in many cases. But I think that Charles' practice sets a bad precedent. Anytime somebody wants to get rid of an article, it can be blanked and redirected to some other page. Noel S McFerran 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No such action should have been taken while AfDs were in progress. Did Charles mention the AfDs to the admin? Has anyone else seen the actual wording of the advice the admin is said to have given as it originally appeared? Doczilla 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. To delete an article, and to make it into a redirect, are alternative ways of getting rid of a separate article; one of them requires a specific debate and a supermajority consensus, while the other only needs a single editor to make the edit. Certainly I think an AfD consensus of keep should not be frustrated by making the article a redirect. However, I wonder if we should avoid specific instruction creep and tackle this sort of disruptive editing by contacting individual editors. Disruptive editing is blockable and making an article a redirect as a way of getting rid of it is certainly disruptive. Sam Blacketer 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. Best course of action to get a direct answer would be to leave me a note on my talk page. The advice was given to me by DGG, but his page is archived frequently and I can't find it when looking for it. There are also some comments across miscellaneous talk pages stating the same. Regarding redirecting while Afd was in process, no, I have never knowingly done that and have checked to make sure I wasn't redirecting someone up for nomination. If I have, it is an unseen error on my part. I have been discussion many, many Afds over the past week or so and discussion has specifically been about criteria for deletion, etc. Charles 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference between redirecting and deletion is that redirecting can be undone by any user. So personally I'd see redirecting a questionable article, especially to another one which contains most of the useful information from the first, as an editorial decision which falls within WP:BRD and shouldn't necessarily require an AfD. If someone disagrees with me they can always revert me and discuss what to do with the article. What's not a good idea is to edit war over the redirect (best to take it to AfD if you can't get agreement on the talk page), or to redirect when consensus is against you, for example, by redirecting an article which has just been kept as a result of an AfD, or redirecting articles of a type which are regularly kept at AfD. There's also a line between being bold and disruptive which depends partly on scale - redirecting hundreds of pages in quick succession would be a good way to cause a scene. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes for a discussion of a recent case like that. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this old nom in Aaron Brenneman's contribution history. Does anything need to be done with it, like officially closing, or actually listing?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd delete it. His edit summary indicates that he intended to come back and nominate later, but he stopped contributing. It was never transcluded or linked on the article. GRBerry 18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The best approach is to contact the user and ask what he wants to do about it. Since this particular user has not contributed since February 26, 2007 (the same day he created the AFD), one can presume that he has left Wikipedia. I have moved the AFD into his user space and will leave him a note just in case he ever comes back.

--Richard 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the accounts Doctorfluffy and AndalusianNaugahyde as sockpuppets of Pilotbob (per checkuser), who I note is presently blocked for 24 hours for querulous AFD nominations. Multiple not-a-votes from these accounts should not be taken as indicating any sort of consensus - David Gerard 15:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly has the authority to close an Afd? I had always presumed that it was an adminstrator. But today the Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_9#Princess_Frederica_of_Hanover was closed after only fourteen and a half hours by User:Rudget who specifically says on his talk page "I am not an administrator". I do not disagree with the keep decision - merely with the process. Noel S McFerran 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering this as well, although Rudget, in all subsequent conversation, has been thorough and answers all questions. Perhaps he should be directed to this conversation. Charles 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, non-administrators are permitted to close only non-controversial AfDs. Even more than an administrator, a non-admin who has participated in the debate or has been involved in editing the article should not close an AfD. This is frequently a subject brought up at deletion review. I think there has been some dispute in the past but it seems that in practice non-administrators can close an AfD as a delete, and then put a speedy deletion tag on the article with an explanation pointing to their close. Sam Blacketer 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be able to participate at a later time today. Rudget _zŋ 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that users who commented on AFDs weren't allowed to close the decision, until the comment above was published, which, unfortunately for me, was after the closure of the AFD in question. For a reason I can't currently work-out, I didn't provide a rationale for the deletion on the page, as I had done here or a reason in the edit summary, as I did here. I probably shall refrain from closing AFDs, as to be honest, in light of this recent evidence I am not all that good at doing it, and will most probably cause some more confusion and edit warring as I did with User:Charles and User:UpDown. However, I will most probably close snow keeps as I can't forsee any arguments against it, or for any other reason, such as "nomination withdrawn" AFDs. I would like to thank the users here who have given me some very good advice on what to do here, and I will move onto another process here, hopefully learning the rules a little better. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Permit me to clarify the process. Non-administrators may close non-ambiguous keep decisions only. Non-administrators may not close "delete" decisions primarily because it is a waste of everybody's time. Non-admins don't have the magic "delete" button so they can't finish the job. They can, as Sam said, put a speedy-delete tag on the page, but by the speedy-deletion rules, the deleting admin must verify that the speedy tag is appropriate before carrying it out. In the case of an AFD decision, that means navigating to the decision, reading it, essentially re-closing it and then returning to the page to carry out the deletion. The whole time this process is going on, we have a significantly increased risk that pages will fall through the cracks and that the community consensus will not be carried out. (We know that's the case because it's happened rather frequently in the past.) If the decision is "delete", no matter how obvious it is, the closure should be left to an admin who can actually carry out the deletion.
On a related note, non-admins should not attempt to close ambiguous decisions. The prevailing argument there is that the close calls demand someone with experience and the confidence of the community to make the call. In general, that means an admin. If a non-admin already has that experience and support, that's far more likely to be a sign that he/she should be made an admin than a sign that the process is broken. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of consistency and prudence, non-admins just really shouldn't close any discussions, not even the ones that they technically can. It will get closed, after all. Doczilla 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the Doc, there. Please do close non-ambiguous keep discussions that have run their time and that you haven't participated in, as it makes admins' jobs easier. It's also good practice in case you want to become an admin. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a key phrase here---have run their time---I see too often a non-admin closing debates after less than 24 hours. Unless the nom is an obvious bad faith nom or deserves to be deleted due to a speedy criteria, I don't think it should be deleted by a non-admin UNTIL AFTER at least 3 or 4 days.Balloonman 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, the "key phrase" is non-ambiguous (or unambiguous) because that's what WP:DELPRO says, to the extent the time is in policy, it relates to the unambiguous status of the result. Though the guideline could be said to be a bit ambiguous itself on this point as it says one thing in one sentence and another thing in another sentence, but that's a topic for discussion here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anytime a debate is closed with less than 24 hours is not enough time to get a sense of if all relevant discussion has occurred. Even if the article has a dozen keep/deletes, I personally oppose non-admin closing it soon after a debate has begun because caters to people with an agenda on the subject. Just last week we had a non-admin closure after 2.5 hours on an AFD. He rationed that 4 people (3 of whom edited the article heavily) voted to keep it that it was a snowball. If the AFD has had sufficeint time AND unambiguous, then I have no problem with non-admin closures. But it's a two parter---I think a lot of non-admins want to get "credit" for closing AFD's thus rush it.Balloonman 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that ambiguity is more significant than time. However, AFD runs for a significant length of time because of what can happen during that time - we've seen things that were snowballing turned around during the discussion. We've seen it both ways from sockpuppet problems, from delete to keep based on research and article improvement, and from keep to delete based on research demonstrating that what everyone thought wasn't so. So closing early is closing an ambiguous discussion, it hasn't settled to the final state yet. GRBerry 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the ambiguity issue is up for discussion at WT:DELPRO. Also please see my comments there on the non-powers of admins, time is certainly an issue, but no more so than for admins. This affects non-AFD XfD's and should be discussed further at WT:DELPRO.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The AfD notice got removed from a page that had been AfD'ed, and in perusing the edit summaries I didn't see the removal, so I nominated it again. Will I cause unspeakable horrors if I delete the second nomination page? --Fabrictramp 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to agree with you, and suggest that you both delete the 2nd AfD and also remove its entry from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 12. The downside is that if, in the future, Benetin gets re-created and then brought to a second AfD, whoever opens the second AfD will get a warning that they are re-creating a deleted file! (since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benetin (2nd nomination) will have existed once already). You can image how confused that person is going to be! Better just leave things as they are. EdJohnston 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"When discussing merge destinations for a particular article, it is disruptive for participants in that discussion to prod (or nominate for deletion) the proposed merge destination article while the other discussion is still going on. If this isn't in a guideline somewhere, it should be." (see here for the orignal quote). Does this sound reasonable? Is it in a guideline already? Should it be if it isn't? Carcharoth 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a guideline, but hopefully it somehow takes into account pages that have a merge tag for months with no discussion or action.--Fabrictramp 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I didn't mean that. I meant cases where an AfD discussion is in progress, with merge destinations being discussed. And then someone participating in that discussion goes and reads the suggested merge destination and promptly tags it for deletion. That seems, to me, to be disruptive of the original discussion. Carcharoth 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there could be two scenarios here. 1) The PROD tag is applied in error. In which case, the first person seeing the tag and disagreeing with it can simply remove the tag. Problem solved and no disruption to the original discussion. 2) The target article itself fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards in which case it is ulikely to be a viable merger target. I don't really see a disruption there either, nor do I see any point in waiting to start the clean-up process. I guess you could have a third case - a PROD tag added in bad faith but that's really just a variation of the first scenario since it can be removed by any editor for any good-faith reason. I don't yet see a reason to clutter up the policy for this situation. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with your "scenario 2" that I see Rossami: First, this seems to be a collateral attack intended to disrupt the process and it could result in the earlier deletion of the target without discussion; Second, and more important, depending on the alleged grounds for deletion merger could solve the problem for both articles, e.g. in the case of notability or an article being little more than a definition.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that sometimes when I list an article for AfD that box listing "AfDs for this article:" appears and sometimes it doesn't? It usually gets it wrong, in a variety of ways. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary G Peterson Elementary School (2nd nomination) lists two AfDs in the box, one of which is the one the box is in, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois (2nd nomination) which I made a few minutes earlier, doesn't list the previous AfD at all? The darn thing is 0 for 2. AnteaterZot 09:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The box checks to see if the name of the AfD matches the name of the article exactly; if it does, then there's no box, because it's most likely a first nomination. If it doesn't match exactly, the box appears, listing all AfDs whose name starts with the name of the article. The listing 2 is correct for a second nomination; the situation with 0 is most likely because the code picked up the name of the article incorrectly, and in such a case the code for the box may need to be edited by hand. --ais523 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the second AfD you mentioned doesn't have a box at all; the reason is that the name of the article was given as Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois (2nd nomination) in the original version of the nomination, which matches the name of the AfD, so the box was never placed there in the first place. --ais523 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So, a mix of my incompetence and its bugginess, then? Sometimes the box appears when no previous AfD has ever existed, and I'm sure it's not a typo. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this doing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Article_Name&redirect=no ?!?!

and will some one take a look at this page Nawa pind shonkia da (pages that link here) I nominated it for deletion here: [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nawa_pind_shonkia_da] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipBembridge (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a notability tag on Brady Steckbauer and informed the article author that he or she needed references. I'm starting to think it could be a hoax--I get only 6 non-wikepedia Ghits, none about the article subject, and the author's only edits are to the article. Do I wait a few days, nominate it for AfD, or PROD it, or nominate for speedy deletion? Thanks. Amaryllis25 ^{"Talk to me"} 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the subject - a modern TV show with no Google hits could probably be prodded or AfD'd more or less immediately, as it's extremely unlikely that such a thing could be unknown to Google. For a 19th centuary mathematician, however, Google is not always the best way of finding sources - there's a lot of historical stuff that isn't on the web yet. I agree that the article looks very hoaxy - but the best thing to do in these circumstances is usually to drop a note to the relevant Wikiproject. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science should have some people with access to more specialised databases who can quickly check whether there's a shred of truth in it. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, speedy isn't applicable here, as there is a claim of notability and hoaxes aren't speediable. Personally, I'd follow the advice Iain99 gave about dropping a note to the appropriate wiki projects, followed by AfD if they can't confirm. (or prod if they can show it's a hoax).---- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added prod template. There is no entry for any mathematician named Steckbauer in the Mathematical Genealogy Project, which can usually be relied upon for notable mathematicians from the 19th century. Note that the article was created by Bsteckba, whose only contribution is the creation of this article. -- EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me... on re-reading it's actually very silly indeed. Berlin was more than a small town in 1832, abandoned waifs generally did not grow up to be baronesses, isotope extraction could not have existed at the time as isotopes were unknown... I could go on. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I speedy-deleted it as nonsense--it didn't rise to the level of hoax. And the authors name was "Bsteckba". Since it was the 2nd time she created it, I left a warning not to try it a third time. DGG (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also asked this question of the closing admin, but am attempting to get a wider view. This AfD has closed with a delete all. My understanding is that this is a deletion of the content not just the articles in that location. Am I correct in this? I ask because one editor is insisting that the content remains valid due to a community consensus of it being on every other airport article. I understand that consensus doesn't override an AfD except at Deletion Review otherwise an AfD is a pointless exercise if the content can just be inserted elsewhere. Is there some kind of guidance/policy that would be informative on this? There has been a discussion at Talk:Manchester Airport about this. I am not asking for vote stacking or anything like that, just some advice on the starting point. Thanks for your help in advance. Regan123 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read through, and I think Delete all meant delete all three list of destination articles, not necessarily remove all the information. However, personally I feel that the list of destinations are of little encyclopaedic relevance since the destinations are bound to change over time and all that could be hoped for is a snapshot of the current situation. Unfortunately, I do not think there was a mandate given there for the complete removal of the information. --Geoff Riley (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Two matters. Firstly, I need some help in understanding how this process works. At "How to discuss an AfD", we’re told:

• The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.

This needs some clarification, I believe. It suggests there should be a general discussion, with people indicating which course of action they favour, and why, and after some appropriate period has passed, whatever consensus has emerged (if any) will be acted upon. If the consensus is “delete”, then the article is deleted. If the consensus is “keep”, or if there’s no consensus either way, then the article is safe – at least for now, until the next time anyone wants to propose deleting it. I’m OK so far.

Given that a finite number of users participate in any one deletion debate, and given that a consensus is identified by the existence of a significant majority for a certain course of action, and given that the outcome is announced in terms such as “The result was delete/keep’’ (e.g. see this recent case) – in what way is the debate not a vote? I guess one answer to that question is that if the delete/keep sides were split 51-49 percent, then nobody could seriously argue there was a consensus either way. Same would be true for 52-48, 53-47, 54-46 …. But there would come a point where a consensus could be argued and generally accepted. From that point, the process is indistinguishable from a vote. And since an article is deleted only whenever such a consensus has been arrived at, then for all intents and purposes it’s a vote. I can’t see anything wrong with saying just that. Not all votes are determined by a simple 50.1% majority, and this is one such case. The only difference between this process and a voting process where the majority is defined as, say, two-thirds, is that we don't specify what the benchmark is. But everyone knows instinctively when the unspecified benchmark has been reached, so ... Why do we deny the elephant in the room when the only way we can get anywhere is by travelling on its back?

My interest in this matter was peaked by the deletion of the article referred to above, in which I’d maintained an interest for some years and done quite a lot of work on. Had I been aware it had been proposed for deletion, I would have argued strongly to keep it. I accept I would probably not have convinced enough users (or perhaps nobody at all) to keep it, and so I hope nobody interprets this post as sour grapes. Maybe I have far too many articles on my Watchlist (over 3,500) to keep track of what’s up for deletion, but that’s just a reflection of the breadth of my interests, and I am who I am. I’m sure there are many users like me, and I fully support the idea raised in a recent thread about significant contributors to an article proposed for deletion being notified of the proposal. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say I understand your frustration. Been there, done that. Won some, lost some. But the "not a vote" concept is important, and I've seen it work well in some deletion debates I've been involved in. (Since I can't remember the specific example, I'll make one up that's similar). Let's say that someone proposes an article on a actor who's done nothing but been on one episode of a TV show for deletion as non-notable. There's five deletes and ten keeps. A vote would say keep, right? But what if the arguments for delete cited the complete lack of meeting the requirements in WP:BIO, such as not finding books or magazine articles written about the actor, lack of non-wiki google hits, etc. And what if the keeps were along the lines of "His first name is the same as mine, and I think everyone with my first name should have an article" or "He's cute"? Yes, a bit of an extreme example, but it does happen from time to time. (It also happens the other way -- I saw an AfD debate where a number of the "Deletes" cited poor writing style as the deletion reason, which is specifically listed as not being a deletion reason.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The "not a vote" issues relates to which consensus we're talking about. If the consensus in an AfD blatantly contradicts Wikipedia guidelines and policies, then it is not consistent with the greater consensus among the Wikipedia community which developed those guidelines and policies in the first place. Doczilla (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor who started this thread, User:JackofOz, mentioned a particular debate which raises trivia issues, where the nominator wanted the list deleted because the list criterion was not encyclopedic. The !voters in the AfD did not seem to have any good response to what the nominator had to say. For instance, nobody responded to User:FisherQueen's challenge: One thing that would change my mind would be some evidence that the subject of people dying on their birthday has been considered as important by some reasonably significant sources somewhere. If you think you have an answer to that comment, I encourage you to take it to WP:DRV. If not, then the verdict seems fair to me. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

At no time did I suggest the process was unfair, although, as with all processes, potential improvements should always be considered. I was simply trying to understand the difference between a consensus and a vote, as applied to our process. The above answers are very enlightening, so thanks to those who've responded so quickly. I'd be interested to hear what anyone else might have to say. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See the Guide for more but the short answer is that decisions are made based on opinions offered with the opinions heavily weighted by the strength of the reasoning behind them and sometimes by the user's contribution history. Civil comments from experienced users who cite relevant policy and thoroughly explain their reasoning get considered carefully. Unexplained or hostile "votes" by suspiciously new users get pretty-much ignored. You could call that "weighted voting" but by the time you finished explaining all the subjective processes used by closers to conduct the weighting, you're still back at the same place - it's not a vote (supermajority or otherwise) in any sense that people normally interpret the word "voting".
It's also not a vote because the closing admin must make the decision based on what's best for the project in the long-term. Determining what's best is enlightened by the discussion but on rare occasions, the closing admin must put his/her reputation on the line and ignore all the rules.
Fabrictramp says his/her example is "a bit extreme". Unfortunately, in my experience that kind of discussion is common. Closers can not trust to counting noses as a way to determine what's best for the project. Rossami (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, it's clearer now. I guess what still troubles me is the wording used when a debate is concluded - "The result was delete/keep". Even if 95% of participants express the view that an article should be deleted, the final decision is still up to the relevant admin. He/she may in some cases decide to go against the majority "delete" opinion, and keep the article; or delete it even though the majority want to keep it. I'm guessing that such cases would be relatively rare, and that most decisions go the way of the majority opinion. Surely, then, it's incumbent on the decision maker to explain why they've made the decision they have. Without that, it appears for all the world as if a vote has been taken, the matter has been decided on majority opinion alone, and the admin is simply rubber-stamping it - which is what prompted my question above. If it's the admin's call, the admin should more explicitly own whatever decision they make. This gets us into the language question. In parliaments and legislatures, when a vote on a bill is taken, the result is usually announced with words like "The result is X". Votes have results; debates have outcomes or decisions. If we want to avoid any perception that our delete/keep debates are simply voting processes, wouldn't it be better for the admin to announce their decision, say something about why they've made it (and something other than words to the effect of "the majority wins"), and not use language such as "The result is ..."? I'd prefer to see something like "My decision is to keep/delete the article. I've made this decision because ..." or "I've decided to keep/delete the article. My reasons are ....". I really hope I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill here, but these do seem to me to be valid concerns. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the policy on non-Latin characters in article titles? For example:

• 財閥
• 七夕
• 琵琶

Do they qualify for deletion? Or are they WP:MOS problems? Or are they not a problem at all? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these particular ones are a problem, in that they're all alternate spellings of the actual article titles that they disambiguate between (which, in turn, are alternate readings of the characters). At least I assume so; I don't read Chinese or Korean, and I haven't used my Japanese for many years. If had an article on only one reading of the characters in question, they'd be perfectly harmless redirects, so disambiguations are appropriate. If the actual articles were there, that'd be a problem, but still not one requiring deletion. —Cryptic 22:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) might be applicable. Perhaps they should be moved, which would let people search either way? --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual articles are at Zaibatsu, Tanabata, and so on, in keeping with that (there's no commonly used English name, so the transliteration is used). Normally, a redirect from the non-Latin script would be created, but in these cases, there'd be multiple redirects from the same characters going to different articles. The usual solution to this problem is a disambiguation page. —Cryptic 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) specifically say not to use Chinese characters in article titles. But it doesn't seem to address disambiguation issues vis-a-vis translation problems, so 七夕 and 琵琶 might be exception to the rule (considering that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is a guideline and not official policy) because there's no commonly accepted English name for them, only names that were romanised into English. However I am also wondering about 東北大學. That is literally translated as Northeastern University, and there's already a disambig page for that (Northeastern University (disambiguation)). Should 東北大學 be a redirect page instead? Similarly, 財閥 is commonly translated as "business conglomerate", should it also be a redirect page? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What is done when an article that was previously AFD'ed and resulted in no-consensus several months ago has not improved and one still thinks it has no notability and no sourcing, and no point in existing?

The article is List of Happy Meal toys, which AFD resulted in 3 deletes, 2 weak keeps and a comment all saying to expand the list to an article or something with content, a keep that suggested moving it to make it an article on the topic, not a list, a keep that noted all the problems with the list, and another keep that was the only one that actually suggested keeping the article as a list. The article is still just an uncited list of toys which has no notability and will never be complete - it seems like a fan project, not an encyclopedia article. TheHYPO (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always nominate an article for deletion if it does not and likely can not meet Wikipedia's standards whether or not there has been a previous decision. It would probably be seen as bad-faith to have immediately relisted it but 3 months or so is generally accepted as a reasonable grace period - especially since the prior decision was "no consensus". If/when you relist the article, be sure to provide a link to the previous discussion. In your nomination, I would also strongly recommend that your observations on the lack of improvement during the intervening time. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The AFD template autolink to the "newly created" discussion on the article ends up linking to the old discussion from the previous AFD. How would I get around that? TheHYPO (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can either manually edit the templates to say "{{subst:afd|PAGENAME (2nd nomination)}}" or you can use {{afdx}} which most of the time will do the same thing. Rossami (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to Template:Afd that would autogenerate the {{oldafdfull}} template needed for linking to closed discussions on the article talk page. Comments are welcome at Template talk:Afd, where a complete explanation and a test implementation can be found. Sandstein (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning edits "Adding AFD template to top and bottom of page as example" and "Never ever nominate WP:AFD for deletion" - not sure what quite went wrong here - tried to put the templates here as an example but got reverted as it was thought I was nominating AFD itself for deletion? How should i place the AFD tmeplate on AFD w/o nominating AFD for deletion (Hope that made sense). It seems it would be a good example and addition to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.162.140 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Guide to deletion for full examples. The instructions at the top of this page are a mere synopsis of the longer instructions. Rossami (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny and scarying in the same time, the eagerness of English Wikipedia to delete the articles, even if they fill the conditions of a good article (notability, reliability, external sources, articles in independent media ect.). I'm affraid that some group of purists has taken over the control of the encyclopedia and force their extremist but let's be honest - not clearly defined requirements. It makes an impression that the articles are deleted only because of personal dislikes of voters, not because of failing the assumptions imposed by the creators of Wikipedia.

Example? The article about Slovio - the artificial language created by a linguist allowing all people speaking slavic languages to communicate easily. The 26 other languages Wikipedias noted the importance of this project, not only the slavic ones or German but even Japanese or Korean :) There is even the Slavopedia started and running. Why are the English users deprived of the information about it? Why was the article about Slovio deleted? When you look closer you will see that the discussion was actually a crusade of one user, strangely focused on deleting it (he even logged in to other languages Wikipedias to call the World-wide crusade against Slovio pl:Dyskusja:Slovio#Deletion <-- in English)!

It all makes an impression that personal sympathy and dislikes are the main rule on English Wikipedia. It makes the reasonable and dedicated users abandon the good articles as they give up discussions with deletion fanatics. Merewyn (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think there was a problem with the debate, please discuss it with the closing administrator. Give him some evidence to work with, and have a real discussion. If after discussion and explanation the result is the same and you still think the result is wrong, then you can take it to WP:DRV. The only part of the argument above that would be of interest at DRV is the implied (though not explicit) claim that the discussion may have been affected by editors solicited from outside. That an article exists on other language Wikipedias, or not, is not relevant to discussions here; each language Wikipedia has its own standards for inclusion and exclusion. GRBerry 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it that you have time to come up with a conspiracy theory about deletion fanatics, but not to just give us one single bit of non-trivial coverage from a reliable, published source? That's all you would ever need to get an article we can keep. One article. <eleland/talkedits> 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article of Slovio was merely an example, and actually, I do not care about it. What I care and what I worry about is the tendency in Wikipedia here to delete the articles accordingly mainly to personal disgusts of users. One user focuses on deleting a quite good article, without any attempt of improving it first or at least trying to improve it, not allowing the interested people to do it, not helping them, not giving a scratch of hint what to improve more and bah - article is removed. There is something very wrong with the system here, especially that an article once removed is extremely hard to restore - some users delete and block it, without checking, just because it was once deleted in the past. And the situation that one user calls on corresponding pages in other Wikipedias to join the vote on English Wikipedia (and vote for deletion) as well as to delete their own articles on their own Wikipedias - I name it simply: SCANDAL! Merewyn (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the link: pl:Dyskusja:Slovio#Deletion, sorry for the previous mess. Merewyn (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing some debates with, admittedly, a lot of consensus for deletion, being closed on the day they were nominated. Should we endorse such quick closures? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If an AFD is almost a speedy, but not quite, and has overwhelming support for deletion supported by policy, I don't see any harm in closing per SNOW. This is very subjective, however, and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Is there an AFD in particular that you wish to discuss? Pagrashtak 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

SNOW deletes are a bad idea; one point of running the discussion for five days is to allow time for articles to be improved, another is to allow things that weren't noticed to be spotted. Sometimes they are necessary, to deal with things like troll-puppet waves, but not often. And snow no consensus closes (which I've seen one of recently) are just plain wrong - consensus can form over time. GRBerry 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Snow deletes are a good idea for clear hoaxes, which are often not speedyable in the strict sense. Fram (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason hoax is not speedyable is we've seen articles believed hoaxes that weren't. This is also reason not to snow them readily. If there is solid evidence from reliable sources that the article is a hoax that might merit a snow (e.g. a current town in the developed world that doesn't appear in goverment records or maps); but a discussion consisting solely of a large number of "I've never heard of it, delete as a hoax" type opinions shouldn't snow. GRBerry 15:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with GRBerry that SNOW-deletes are a very bad idea generally and they are an exceptionally bad idea for hoaxes. We've had way too many nominations of obscure or poorly written topics that were nominated as hoaxes, convinced many others in the discussion that they must be hoaxes and then late in the discussion someone with detailed content knowledge and a cite shows that it was not actually a hoax. In my opinion, SNOW-deletes should be prohibited unless the article clearly meets an already-defined criteria for speedy deletion. Rossami (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW deletes are more vulnerable to overturning at DRV than regular full-term deletion debates. (Opponents can cite a flaw in the process, saying it was 'wrongly closed early'). In some cases the AfD discussion will reveal that a speedy-delete criterion is obviously met. I don't object if those are closed as SNOW, but then they should be just as easily overturnable as any other speedy delete. If you feel strongly that some article shouldn't exist and you hope it won't ever come back, then it's in your interest to let the AfD debate run for the full term. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Hoax snow/speedy deletes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home alone 5, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Keibler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTA 5 (all three from the same day). Which of these would have been better kept open for five days? Which of these was not obvious? I don't see why thes are an "exceptionally bad idea", personally. Fram (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

These are all against the deletion policy, since they were all closed as Speedy, and 'hoax' is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. If you don't like the policy, you could try to get it changed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)There is a difference between a snow delete and a speedy delete. A snow delete is a decision that an article does not meet a speedy deletion criteria, but that no amount of repair effort could possibly bring it to keepable status. That some snow deletes may be the right outcome (although none of those examples are snow deletes: the first two are legitimate speedies under CSD and the thirdis a policy violating speedy) doesn't make it any less a bad idea. Snow deletes are a bad idea for several reasons including 1) being less stable, 2) preventing improvements to the encyclopedia, and 3) being perceived as unfair by editors. There are no real benefits to a snow delete, so a cost benefit analysis clearly shows costs exceeding benefits. GRBerry 16:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Now if you two could agree if this were legitimate speedies or not, things would be clearer :-) For me, these were incorrectly labeled as speedy deletes, but correctly closed and deleted as snow deletes, as articles that had not a snowball's chance in hell to survive. Your (GRBerry) three reasons why they are a bad idea are not applicable to these three deletes (and many others), because; these articles would never be an improvement of the encyclopedia, wile their deletion clearly was an improvement; being deleted, they are equally stable as when existing, as is Wikipedia; and I can hardly imagine any editor perceiving the deletyion of blatant hoaxes as "unfair". Dragging the discussion out for five days would be a pointless exercise in futility, and would for very recent hoaxes (the majority of those that end up on AfD) only increase the chance of being mirrored. Fram (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another factor to consider beyond the possibility GRBerry and Rossami mention above of the "hoax" being legitimate is allowing time for the {{afd}} and {{hoax}} tags to propagate to mirrors. While I'm under NDA so can't name the specific article, a similarly-snowed hoax cost my previous employer a significant chunk of time and money. Obviously we should've investigated the (false) print citations sooner, yes, but if things had been done properly from Wikipedia's end, the article wouldn't have stayed mirrored on answers.com for three months after its deletion here with no indication that it was under suspicion, and there's at least a possibility that the same article wouldn't still be on approximately two dozen other mirrors I see on Google today. —Cryptic 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this would be a separate issue. After all, attack pages can be speedied even though they may have propagated; the mirror sites can still cause people serious problems even when things are done properly.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pages suspected of being a hoax can and should be immediately tagged as dubious. When the page is copied up to the mirror, the tag provides all the disclosure necessary that the content is not currently trustworthy. If a bad page stays up on some mirror somewhere longer than you'd like it to (or if the mirror is removing the tags), that's a problem to take up with the mirror. Our deleting the page out-of-process won't solve those problems. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't that deleting the page out-of-process would help, rather the opposite: that deleting it out-of-process exacerbates the problem. —Cryptic 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I misunderstood your comment. You are correct that allowing the discussion to run for the full 5 days increases the odds that the mirror will pick up the properly-tagged version. Rossami (talk)

Is there actually any consensus that subject like Thomas Taylor (electronic sports player) can be notable enough for inclusion? I haven't been following AfD's every move lately, so I'm not sure enough to take something like this to AfD proper. But really. What next? articles on "professional" tiddlywinks players? On line cooks at notable restaurants? Yeesh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think the notability requirements for an article about a professional electronic sports player would be any different than the notability requirements for any other person. A person either meets the notability threshold or doesn't. Rray 17:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand on what Rray said, if there's reliable sources showing notability, then keep them. If they play in a fully professional league (and I really hope that wording gets clarified soon!), they meet notability for sports. Otherwise, not notable and away they go, whether it's video games, tiddlywinks, or line cooks. I've only seen one AfD for a professional video gamer; reliable sources showing notability couldn't be found and the result was delete.--Fabrictramp 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See Dennis Fong, he is only notable due to being Quake/Doom champ. -Bikinibomb 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw an article in the Portuguese WP which I'd like to translate and add my own edits to English WP. However, it's a bit obscure, especially to the English readership. Is there any weight given to notability in another language? I think the reliable sources are all in Portuguese. If one relies on English reliable sources, there are few. Comments? Archtransit 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that we prefer sources in English, so if a specific source exists in both languages, use and cite the one in English. But the sources that aren't in English are not of lesser reliability because of it. They are just much harder to use. The Wikipedia article in another language is not a reliable source, and each language specific Wikipedia has its own standards for inclusion, so you should judge whether the topic meets our standards. GRBerry 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no automatic rule either way. Just because it meets the Portuguese WP's inclusion criteria does not necessarily mean that it meets ours. Each project has different standards. That said, if can be a contributing factor in the evaluation.
The second part of your question was about sources. No, sources do not have to be entirely English sources. Foreign language sources are explicitly allowed. However, they are often given less weight since they can't be as easily evaluated. If an article depends solely on foreign language sources, it often helps to have two independent Wikipedians who have some fluency in the language to attest to the content and to summarize their findings (in English) on the article's Talk page. It's not a requirement but it really helps. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...I find it odd that in the "How to list pages for deletion" section you have a very small amount of AfD Wikiquitte between where it says "To list multiple related pages for deletion see here." and the actual section where you learn to list multiple pages for deletion, followed by a large section on wikiquitte.

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the two listing sections together and the two wikiquitte sections together?--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This page was previously deleted via AfD and is back. I don't understand the instructions for having a second vote. Is that necessary? Or can it be speedied? --Pleasantville (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's recreated content but reviewing the deleted and recreated versions, it's not close enough to qualify for speedy-deletion under that particular case. I recommend a second AFD discussion. In your nomination, note that this page was previously discussed and deleted, that it has been changed since but that you still think it's inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Be sure to provide a link to the previous AFD when you do.
The process for opening a second discussion is the same as for an initial discussion but you use the {{afdx}} template instead. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This template seems to be overused (see the December 2 AFD log). What is its real purpose ? Tomj 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not overused; when you see it many times that means there were many debates that had few participants. While we don't vote at AFD, one or two people voicing their opinion is hardly discussion/debate among a group. Sheer numbers matter little but there must be some threshold. All of the debates I see listed on December 2 which were relisted from the prior 5 day period had no participants or 1 or 2.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't enough information in the discussion for adminstrators to tell whether the community wants an article to be deleted or not, they leave the discussion open; relisting moves it back to the start of the logs to attract more attention. (People who would normally ignore an AfD as being boring/too obvious are more likely to contribute if relist tags are present.) --ais523 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is much better to continue a discussion than to have problems when someone complains that there was not sufficient participation- people are usually conscientious in paying attention to the relisted articlesDGG (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true. In fact the original AFD for Metroid Prime (creature) was overtuned for that very reason. --207.236.151.102 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this been talked about before but what do people here think of a bot that reads XfDs in the same way that ArbCom and RfA are tracked, with a list like [5] except it shows on the talk page of the XfD in question(which are the mostly unused), In which the list will automaticly add {{User5|Username}} the all the usernames.

• ArbCom & AfD examples
• User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections
• User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report

More then likely it would need # system rather using bullets, with Keep, Delete & Merge sections.

• This would make it easier to spot SPA, Socks and duplicates. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 02:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• NO!!! Please don't do anything that reinforces the misconception that we are voting. In particular, do not do anything that sorts the discussion into "keep", "delete", "merge", etc. sections. These are discussions and the best solution is one that arises through consensus - which often means nuanced decisions and discussions which consider more than merely some set of predefined options. Furthermore, the closure of a discussion requires careful review not only of the comments but also of where they fit in the chronology of the discussion. 5 delete opinions will have completely different weight if they are all early in a discussion (which then has one new fact added and all subsequent opinions are "keep") than when the 5 "deletes" are all at the end of the discussion. SPAs and socks are not that hard to identify. And duplicate entries are usually self-policed by the discussion participants. Your proposal would have far more adverse side-effects than the relatively minor cure it could deliver. Rossami (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to in anyway reinforces a misconception, but I see your point else where, thanks for the feedback. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)