Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Why is the "8 December (Saturday)" red even though it has content? I've refereshed several times, but it stays red. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have listed an article for WP:AFD. However, while the discussion is still ongoing the 'author' (User:The Dragon of Bosnia)of the article has unilaterally removed the tag. Probably to stop a debate about the merits of 'his' article. I have since put the tag back in place. However, is there any remedy for or means to stop this type of behavior from being repeated?Osli73 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. The tag should stay until the process is over, I though it is not needed anymore as I included five different sources and improved it a lot. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was placed for deletion by User:Henke37, a suspected sockpuppet of User:TTN.(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination)) A user requested I utilize Wikipedia:Request for checkuser, however, I indicated that it did not qualify for checkuser, until the AfD was over. The AfD is not over yet, but User:JzG deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, which is not the propper process, since WP:SSP archives suspected sock puppet discussions. (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN). I'm curious what to do in this specific situation. Taric25 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: the AfD is over, and we kept the article, so the SSP does not qualify for checkuser. I still don't know what to do in this situation. Please advise. Taric25 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, since the AfD is over, I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so if anyone has any comments, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using a light-red coloring for the background of AfD pages which have resulted in Delete. SharkD (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? The only purpose for shading at all is to help the closers to more quickly identify those discussions which have not yet been closed. Color-coding the closed discussions would add considerably more complexity to the closing process. What purpose would it serve to justify the cost? Rossami (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose would be to more quickly identify those discussions which have resulted in deletion, as opposed to those which have resulted in Keep. For instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals uses color coding. SharkD (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But what would you do with that knowledge? Why do you want to specially see only those discussions which resulted in deletion? Rossami (talk)

...this. --EEMIV (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow AFD as well as I should, but have any AFDs been submitted for the articles in Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees? While some of them may have a some limited notability, and WP:V can be satisfied by the reams of reports the US Government has been turning out, I fail to see why someone like Nasrullah belongs in an encyclopedia. It runs afoul of WP:BLP1E off the bat, and would suggest that every individual person that the US has imprisoned under questionable circumstances (Japanese internment camps, Indian Removal) is notable. Burzmali (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Many. Many. See User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for most of the deletion discussions. GRBerry 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Looks like an entire category being use as a memorial to those folks. That's depressing. Burzmali (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

as more sources are found, as more people notice and write about them, I expect to see all the articles justified and restored. I think every individual one of them will in their own country be considered notable; and we cover the world, if we have the editors to find the sources and write the articles. There are things that are merely "questionable circumstances,"--but then there are also international prominent outrages. If we in the US are forced to witness the loss of our nation's claim to civilized behavior, we have the obligation to at least bear witness--though if we do so here, we must do it within the standards of WP. DGG (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bearing witness sounds an awful lot like WP:MEMORIAL. Also, that still doesn't justify the WP:BLP1E violation. Let's face it, this guy was a tailor (non-notable) that got recruited by the Taliban (non-notable) and who got captured and held by the US (possibly notable). It seems difficult to have an article devoted to him that isn't just a WP:COATRACK to hang attacks against the US governments' behavior in this situation. Burzmali (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of evidence of bad behavior in that list, including nominating articles with "NN" as the only explanation, nominating articles minutes or hours after creation, speedy deletion after {{hangon}}, and nominations by sock-puppets. Dhaluza (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion after a {{hangon}} tag isn't necessarily bad behavior. It's up to the deleting admin to weigh the merits of the speedy request against the merits of the hangon request.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC). Yes, many people creating (for example) what they know to be junk articles about their schoolmates add hangon as a matter of course, and of course any admin will simply ignore that. But if a serious hangon gets ignored, start by asking the admin to reverse the deletion. Admins generally do so if there is any merit at all, and then they just nominate the article for AfD if they think it should nonetheless be deleted. DGG (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If an article has been nominated previously and then nominated again the link goes to the old nomination. What do you do about this? --Neon white (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On the article, use the {{afdx}} template (with appropriate parameter: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... 15th ...) instead of {{afd1}}. GRBerry 03:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An article that I nominated for deletion successfully was recreated. The new one is WORSE then it was before. Am I able to renominate and lock the article? wiki_is_unique (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article does not address the reasons why it was deleted via an AFD discussion previously then you can nominate it for speedy deletion via WP:CSD#G4. To quote from the speedy criteria "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." If you feel it does not fit this criteria then renominating the article is probably sensible. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about Hood Surgeon, an administrator speedy-deleted it today as a G4, and protected it against re-creation. (A smart move, since it's already been deleted and re-created seven times). EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And it was also logically salted meaning no one other than an admin can recreate it now. --67.68.152.170 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to create a deletion request for Squacketball. This is the second time the article has appeared, it was deleted after the last deletion request. But I think I screwed up the entry on this page for it. I can't make it appear.Archer3 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you did, but it doesn't seem to be listed. Generally, recreated content shouldn't be listed on AFD, and seems there was a clear decision in the debate, so I retagged it as speedy deletion. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It all looks fine to me. Can you give us more details on what isn't appearing correctly? --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And FWIW, I've deleted the article, as it hasn't addressed the notability issue from the AfD.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a DRV would be pointless. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the the current backlog in AfD is a function of not enough users voicing their opinions on articles or a lack of admins closing them once consensus is achieved. From the articles I've seen, it looks more along the lines of users not contributing, but I'm not certain. Mbisanz (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the WP:CON, I still don't get it in regards to AFDs though. Who is it who has the finally say in whether it's a keep or delete? Do they have to read the whole discussion then decide on the quality of the argument, not the quantity of votes. Coz "consensus" means majority, but it says on this page that it's definately not a vote??? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The best summary of determining how AFDs should be closed is at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So is it just one admin who decides an AFD, or do they have a group discussion about the AFD as well? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the one closing admin who makes the decision, however if anyone believes that person interpreted the debate on the AFD incorrectly they may take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review, if they are unable to resolve it with the closing admin first. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go re-read WP:CON because consensus is definitely not majority rule. Neither is it supermajority or unanimity. Consensus means that everyone has been heard and, while we may not all agree with the answer, we can all live with it.
More than that, Wikipedia recognizes that beyond a certain critical mass, it is impossible as a practical matter to achieve pure consensus, therefore we only seek "rough consensus" (which is best described at the link Davewild offered above). Rossami (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:CON, I just said I did up top there, so please don't jump down my throat when I ask for help understanding it.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "Consensus means that everyone has been heard and, while we may not all agree with the answer, we can all live with it". Particularly the "we can all live with it" bit, this implies there's some sort of middle ground in an AFD, but all it actually boils down to is "keep" or "delete" (merging might not always be appropriate). One group gets their way and the other doesn't, both sides "can live with it" coz they have no choice but to.

Besides my original question was answered by Davewild with the "rough consensus" link. I haven't come here to argue how Wikipedia works, I just simply wanted to know how it works. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The practical way to find out is to join in Deletion Review yourself; we need more people to get a more representative range of views. . It isnt all keep or delete or merge--articles can often be modified to reach a standard of acceptability, and many Deletion Reviews end in such a compromise. DGG (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that most reasonable editors recognize that many articles should be deleted, and would never get deleted if we required strict consensus on every one, because a few extremists could always block consensus in each case. So there is a broad consensus for the concept of a deletion process, and we live with the individual case by case mistakes, since they can always be fixed eventually. As DGG says, join in the deletion discussions, and the reviews, to help prevent and fix the mistakes. Dhaluza (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked this on Deletion debates, but that page doesn't seem to get much traffic, so I'm re-asking here.

Two things:

• Is adding the template,such as {{oldafd}}, to an article's talk page part of the discussion closing procedure, or is it up to the people who work on the specific article to add it? If it's not part of the procedure, could it be added? There are quite a few articles that don't have the tag, probably just because nobody thought to add it. It is very helpful to be able to point people to/refer to the old debate(s) when someone brings up the acceptability of the article, or if it gets renominated. (Yes, I know consensus changes so it's not a discussion closer, but it is nice to have the history to refer back to).
• Should we bother adding the tag at all if the result is speedy keep? It would seem to me that pages are speedy kept when the nomination was pointless and just a waste of people's times. Therefore tagging the article as being speedy kept really serves no practical purpose aside from record keeping. Additionally many debates that are speedy closed are because the nominator vandalizing/editing to make a point/trolling, so slapping the tag on the debate only serves to keep it going.

- Koweja (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To see the full process for closing deletion debates, go to Wikipedia:Deletion process where you'll find that, yes, it is part of the process to add a note about the deletion debate on the article's Talk page (perhaps using the template but perhaps just using text). However, that's a relatively new part of the process. If you're looking for many of the older discussions, they're not noted. Those links also tend to get archived off or flat removed by partisans who are offended that their page was ever nominated for deletion in the first place.
It's also a somewhat optional part of the process. (In a volunteer-run operation, everything is optional to some extent. This just a bit more than most.) If you see one missing, go ahead and add a link on the Talk page.
To your second question, I don't think anyone has ever explicitly addressed the issue of "speedy-keeps". Leaving it up to the closer and/or the page editors seems to work. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I found Eileen Hayward from clicking on "Random Article", and decided it could be nominated for deletion. Then I noticed in the template on the page that theres lots of similar pages for Secondary characters in Twin Peaks. I think all of them could be merged into one page, especially because some of the characters are played by actors who dont have their own wikipedia articles. But although Ive done some editing here before I got a username, I dont think I could nominate all the different pages without getting something wrong. And I dont know if what I'm thinking (merging) should be done at Articles for deletion or somewhere else. Can anyone suggest what to do? Horsesforcorses (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICTION has the relevant guideline. Probably the majority of the characters in Twin Peaks aren't notable enough for their own article, so merging them into a single article on the characters would be the way to go. If you're feeling brave, you can create the article on the characters, copy the information from each character into the new article, and then change the individual character's article to a redirect. If you aren't feeling brave, you can add a {{merge}} tag to each article and leave it for someone else to do. If you need more help, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll be glad to step you through it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

but do not be surprised if you get some opposition if you do all the characters. The major characters in that series are probably notable. DGG (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a page AMP Credit Union yesterday. I think it was speedily deleted. Is there any place where I can see why it was nominated and why I wasn't informed? I like to think that given my experience if I have created something that wasn't upto scratch, I would be told......Todd^#661 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted at 15:28 on 31 December 2007 by user:Keilana with the explanation "CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance)". Looking at the page at the time it was deleted, I can understand the concern. Do you have evidence that the company meets any of our generally accepted inclusion criteria? Rossami (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

it should not be speedy deleted if it even asserts some importance, but the article did not clearly do so. The nearest was to say 'Only employees of AMP and GIO are allowed to join.",and a category putting it among companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. If you explain the importance of those two companies,and put the Stock Exchange statement in the article, it should pass speedy. But as Rossami says, it may not be enough to prevent deletion of the article at WP:AFD. Some financial information might help. DGG (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While sorting AfD's, I came across a debate without a nomination. An IP, 24.167.198.159 (talk · contribs), added the AfD nom to the article here, on 29 December, but apparently failed to actually nominate the article by creating the subpage. An editor created the debate subpage with a comment in favor of keeping the article, and Dumbbot later completed the nom. Given no rationale for deletion, and the fact than an IP nominated the article without comment, I'm inclined to non-admin close - BUT, reading the article, I'm not 100% sure that the article would survive an AfD debate. I'm mentioning it here for additional input. If the article is to be nominated, I'd recommend re-nominating or re-listing it, which I am happy to take care of. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I started an AfD on an article which didnt have any sources at the time. People have found sources for it now so I'd like to withdraw the AfD if possible. If anyone wants to close it, please go ahead. We have two reliable sources talking about the site in a non-trivial way ([1],[2]) so this qualifies for WP:WEB now. Otherwise we can wait for the normal process with whatever the outcome is, I am fine either way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike the nomination out. <s>Like this</s>Marlith 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever's responsible for the template code might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toa (2nd_nomination) - something needs fixing here, I think. Tevildo (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:Articles for deletion/Concerned (2nd). Tevildo (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but thought I might as well bring it up here, too: is it possible to do something with AfD closures so that it indicates in the AfD TOC when the AfD is closed, or does the fact that AfD uses transclusion prevent that? I know it's considerably simpler at the BLPN noticeboard, which I frequent, given that the tickets are on the actual page, but I don't want to presume it's impossible to do with transclusion without asking. People who do technological stuff (I do not) are constantly impressing me with their ingenuity. :) It would certainly make it easier to close if we could simply look at the TOC and see what's outstanding. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible by changing the section title on the AfD subpage itself. I can't think of an easy way to make {{at}} do that automatically, though. --ais523 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

{{at}} could substitute a new heading using {{SUBPAGENAME}} if closers are told to remove the existing heading as well as the REMOVE template, and the closing rationale would have to be typed completely within the first parameter. But this would take getting used to. –Pomte 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you suppose this would make things easier to use or be more trouble than it's worth? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have become concerned, recently, about pages being AfD'd within minutes of creation. Often this takes place during the initial article creation and causes understandable frustration amongst editors and sometimes loses us new editors. It also wastes the time of the Community as, with the addition of sources, a snowball keep becomes apparent.

I am well aware of the theory that articles should be written in user space until they are fully developed and ready to be sprung upon a surprised and delighted world. However, this is an ideal and council of perfection that very many newish editors will be unaware of. Generally they create a page and then develop and source it over the next few hours helped, no doubt, by various editing tags. Placing unreferenced, wikify etc tags are the way to guide authors through article development not using the sanction of AfD. Now, if this guidance goes unheeded then of course an AfD is the way to go for articles that don't meet notability guidelines but not as a first resort.

What I am suggesting is a policy that pages cannot be AfD'd within 24 hours of creation. Really bad articles will, of course, get speedied so those pages given a 24 hours grace will be articles that are potentially redeemable. TerriersFan (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What about some sort of software solution that puts a warning up when an editor uses subst:afd1 that lets them know when the article was created and suggests they undo their action if it is a young article? Then they could keep going, but will have to think about what they are doing. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That certainly sounds a neat idea. However, I think some period of grace would help both article creation and save time all round. These two suggestions are not, of course, mutually exclusive. TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TerriersFan's proposal makes perfect sense to me. In just the past week or so I've seen two AfD nominations made within 60 seconds of the creation of the article. These nominations were based on calling the article "non-notable" although it is obviously impossible to know that in less than a minute — and in one case I was able to determine that multiple, independent, reliable sources providing substantial coverage existed -- and do it within a minute. Hair-trigger AfDs are wasting the time of multiple editors. We lose nothing by waiting a day, and by not waiting we potentially lose newbie editors whom we shouldn't WP:BITE. We also offend editors participating in AfD, and those discussions don't need to be any less civil than they too often are.Noroton (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be opposed to this as a hard rule. I have prodded articles that do not meet CSD, such as hoaxes, which were quickly deprodded by the original author. The proper next step is to list the article on AfD. Waiting 24 hours to do so is a problem because such articles should not, in my view, be required to persist for a certain period of time without a deletion tag. In cases when an editor lists an underdeveloped albeit legitimate article from a new editor on AfD, the nom should be thanked for their good intentions and be asked to read WP:BITE. I would not, however, be opposed to AnteaterZot's idea. Accurizer (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I have massive empathy for you over hoaxes. IMHO they should be speediable but that is a different issue. At the moment we have AfDs that are eight days old. I am not sure, in that context, that a few extra hours of life matter and I think that the benefits well outweigh the downside. The answer to your issue is, I would suggest, a better and faster way of dealing with hoaxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerriersFan (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Terriersfan. This has become quite a disruption lately. AFD processes initiated within 10 minutes (some less than 3!) after creation. It seems impossible for an editor to perform their due diligence and seek additional sources for the article in such a period. Having said that, if the normal procedures are followed, PROD/ CSD, then people object and attempt to improve the article, then an AFD, and our time is well spent. But as of late it's getting kinda rediculous. The creator of the article has to stop what (s)he is doing, respond to talk page templates, get familiar with AFD (no small task for a new editor) all-the-while not able to continue to improve the article. So the result is that the article gets improved during the afd, and it gets speedy-kept or kept after much needless conflict. The 24-hour AFD waiting period seems reasonable, and also seems like a task that could be easily be handled by one of the bots (removing the AFD and warning the nominator if the article creation was less than 24 hours ago). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I like anteater's suggestion--we should be able to implement it--it would at least serve to deal with some of t he instances where the tagger did not realise. I think just giving the alert is enough a a first step. DGG (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I was having a real hard time seeing anteaterzot's post. Now that I have read it, I also agree that this would be a reasonable first step. Perhaps set the timer to 6 hours. I also think it should append the text "this nomination was posted x:xx after the creation of the article" in cases where the user posts it anyway, to emphacize the need for the nominator to explain the rationale for the rapid nomination. So how can we proceed from here? Do we rush to the developers or do we have some formal process to follow? JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new problem. Nor, from what I can tell, has it suddenly become worse. Yes, there are inappropriate and/or premature nominations and those should be soundly shouted down. But I share Accurizer's reluctance about making a ban on nominations into a hard rule. Some pages are clearly not and should never be speediable (hoaxes are a good but not the only example) yet should not be suffered for more than a very brief period. Any hard rule that you make will be used by the vandals to game our own processes against us. I could support a grace period measured in minutes, even up to an hour - but 24 hours is too long for some pages. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, who's going to remember the page after 24 hours? The people AfDing new articles are almost certainly going to be NP patrollers. Do we have to make them keep a list of every article they intend on sending to AfD, to resolve 24 hours later? -Amarkov moo! 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Why not expect them to accept some kind of responsibility for their actions? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We can already hold editors responsible by established practices. If the admins who monitor AfD and Speedy notice that an editors is regularly, persistently or continuously nom'ing in bad faith, we have recourse. a formal warning, then RfC or Arb if needed. Often occasional clusters occur when dealing with vandals, but if every day, or once a week, an admin sees User X has nom'd 5 or 10 brand new articles, they'll be caught and rebuked quickly. Making editors start keeping logs and lists is an awful lot to expect of volunteers, and I'm sure many editors will take an 'i'm a volunteer, someone else can take that hassle on' attitude. ThuranX (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that we have editors nominating articles for deletion without addressing their concerns on the talk page first. Particularly with new articles, dropping a note on the talk page should be a prerequisite to an AfD. You can't judge a book by its cover, and you can't judge an article by its first edit, and you can't vet the subject of an article in a few minutes. These knee-jerk noms not only waste the community's time, they annoy productive editors, and WP:BITE newcomers. I agree that setting arbitrary time limits for starting an AfD, and keeping logs, or other forms of bureaucracy are counterproductive. But this is a Wiki, and we are supposed to work things out through discussion. It should be common courtesy for a nominator to try to address their concerns with the article's creator through the ordinary means of the talk page, before bringing it to the community through the extraordinary means of a deletion discussion. It is appalling how many articles come to AfD with red talk page tabs. A simple rule requiring an attempt to address the issues on the talk page first will automatically impose a cooling-off period, and will prevent many unnecessary AfD's. It will also keep the deletion discussions that do start anyway productive by providing background for participants to evaluate before commenting. Dhaluza (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• 24 hours is reasonable. The urgent articles to delete are copyvio and some BLP-violations and those are processed in other means. I understand the patrolling of new pages and the concern that an article is "garbage" and, if not deleted now, will fester unnoticed but to bite contributors by slapping a "DELETE" notice minutes after a page is started is a "bad thing"™. There are many other good options: put it on your watchlist, tag it with helpful instructions on what is still needed for an appropriate article (which puts it in a category which can be combed later for clean-up), welcome the user with some helpful instructions on their talk page, put a {{todo}} list on article talk page, add it to a project assessment or watchlist. Perhaps you could even move an article to a user's sandbox and ask them to improve it before posting live? Perhaps a page can be created of a list of articles that looked unencyclopedic on the first look which can be reviewed the next day. In summary, the idea of an AfD delay has a great deal of merit. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a 24-hour gap. It gives the article time to develop, and it'll help us be a lot less WP:BITEy to newcomers. Plus if a newpage patroller wants to delete it so bad, watchlist it and see what comes of it. Wizardman 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But why should NP patrollers have to watchlist all the articles they want to send to AfD, and then remember which articles those were in 24 hours? Remember, AfD provides time for new information to be presented, and admins are supposed to relist if significant information comes along late. And if someone is going to quit because another person started a discussion on deleting their article, do we really want them here? -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the main AFd page there's a list of steps to take before AFD'ing an article. I'd ask why NP patrollers feel they can ignore every single one of the steps, Is some cases i'd suggest that includes even reading the article (i.e. a 1 minute existance delete).--Cube lurker (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And don't you need to watchlist the AfD discussion anyway, because you may need to withdraw the nomination if it proves to be unfounded? Or is this another step that can be left to others to sort out?

By placing a note on the talk page with an easily recognized edit summary, you can quickly reference the pages you have flagged on NP patrol by going to your Special:Contributions page and selecting talk namespace entries. Then you can check back daily to see if your concerns were addressed, and either leave follow-up comments, or AfD if it's a hopeless case. Instant AfD's are not just unnecessarily disruptive, they are also a sign of laziness. Dhaluza (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a ban on instant AfDs, it sounds to me like the issue needs to be addressed with individual editors, for several reasons. One is, as was mentioned above, there are times when a deletion discussion is appropriate even after just one minute. (Hoaxes, especially where there is reason to believe a prod will be contested, are an example). Another reason is that some NPPers are simply far too enamored with deletion, whether it's speedy, prod, or AfD. Yes, I know that a lot of crappy new pages are made -- I do a lot of NPP myself, so I see what's out there. But I also see a lot of promising pages get tagged with a speedy for nonsense or lack of notability within minutes of creation, and I also (sadly) see admins going ahead and deleting them. Yes, it's more work to educate individual editors, but the only other alternative is to take valuable tools out of the hands of responsible editors. Nobody wins that way.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well put. This issue doesn't seem amenable to a blanket rule. On the one hand, blatant nonsense shouldn't have 24 hours grace (even if it doesn't meet any speedy criteria), and on the other, it seems awfully bite-ish to tag a page whose poor newbie editor didn't know about all the rules in advance. I think we have to evaluate each one on the merits. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The one situation that occurs with addressing with the individual editor is that if you do it in the AFD you get "ADDRESS THE NOMINATION, NOT THE NOMINATOR!!" which is valid per policy, but if you leave it on the talk page it's easily ignored.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that unless the nom believes there is a hoax or other issue that requires immediate attention, there should be a 48 hour wait time from article creation during which time the article should have been tagged. If an article is brought to AfD in less than 48 hours without such a justification (clearly mentioning the time since article creation) then it is procedurally kept speedily. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving this discussion to Village Pump. The discussion has gone stale here, and is still quite unresolved. Any takers? JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a problem with nominators not reading the 'Before nominating an AfD' section. Maybe it should be made more prominent. It isnt mentioned in the lead of the page. --neonwhite user page talk 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm happy with either the Village Pump or changing the lead. Pump is probably best. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is, and always has been, editors not doing what everything — the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:Notability, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage — tells them to do: search for sources themselves first. The solution is to get editors to do that. Software solutions are bad solutions. Bureaucratic "You may not nominate an article that is less than X hours old." solutions are bad solutions. This is a behavioural problem, usually based upon ignorance of what the editing, content, and deletion policies actually are, for which editor education is the solution.

  Pointing out that a rationale, be it the nominator's or someone else's, is not according to policy is perfectly proper, and a legitimate part of AfD Patrol. If a nominator persists in making poor nominations, then Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the way to go. This has happened several times before (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat). The goal is to get editors to search for sources themselves before making nominations. It isn't to get them to wait N hours and fiddle with watchlists, or to click little "Are you sure?" boxes in forms, or to jump through whatever arbitrary procedural hoops you map think up. It's to get them to actually do the work that (a) makes for a proper nomination and (b) makes the encyclopedia better.

  If you want to edit something to encourage those New Pages patrollers with bad habits to change their habits, edit Wikipedia:New pages patrol and Wikipedia:WikiProject New page to discourage zero-work AFD nominations and (in the case of the latter) outright assumptions of bad faith. Again, see User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncle G: You are my new hero! I am so very impressed by your triage document. I agree that putting a link to this document in the hands of offending patrollers would be much more helpful than some software gate that we would ultimately just come back here and complain that they were bypassing or ignoring. As well, any essay that manages to include a reference to Leopold Lummerstorfer really gets points in my book :) Would you consider putting this document in project namespace (eg. WP:TRIAGE) and then we could include a link in the lead of the 'Before nominating an AfD' section of WP:AFD and WP:CSD, as well as other appropriate places like newpage patrol, etc. Of course we could use a link to it in its current location, but a project location would offer several benefits: it would encourage collaboration to expand and refine it over time, it would give the initial impression as being more than one person's view, therefore being more likely to be read. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We now have articles listed latest-first, which has, I think, improved things a bit (or at least reduced slightly the number of AfDs getting tiny numbers of !votes). I'd like to suggest that as a next step we rename this as "Articles for discussion" (as with Wikipedia:redirects for discussion). This is to recognise current practice, which may result in keep, merge, redirct or delete consensus; three of these are not delete. Additionally, "keep and improve" is often advocated but the second part of this is frequently omitted. Eventually I would advocate having an "expedited cleanup" close, which gives, say, 14 days for the major problems with an article to be remedied - bands that look notable but lack independent sources, say - after which time if the article is not properly fixed according to set criteria it would be treated as a {{prod}}. But that's an aside. Articles for discussion is closer to RfC and other processes, recognises the non-delete closes, and also lacks some of the stigma of "This article is teh suck, we nuke!" in the Big Reg Infobox at the top of the article; WP:BLP subject in particular find this quite hurtful. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But the purpose of listing an article at AfD is to argue for its deletion. Merge/redirect and redirect are both in effect keep or delete, depending on context. "Articles for discussion" suggests that people can propose merges and cleanup tasks here. "Articles nominated for deletion for discussion" would be more precise, but that's too long and we can safely go for the more abrupt title, with an explanation at the top of WP:AfD. There are potential BLP concerns for every scenario: a subject may not realize the potential severity of "Articles for discussion," and feel hurt when the result is unexpectedly deletion. –Pomte 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No it is not--the purpose of listing at Afd is to suggest the possible deletion of a article, and ask for discussion on it. The best end for an AfD is an improved article, kept as a result of the discussion. The point of the entire process is the community discussion. DGG (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. By focusing on discussion, rather than deletion, we also remove some of the contest aspect of winners and losers as well. What we want is community input in the discussion, not any particular outcome. Dhaluza (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with Guy's excellent suggestions. I would like to see them implemented. - Neparis (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to believe that, if an editor writes an article that ends up under Discussion at an Articles for Discussion "debate", the editor might not realize that the article is at risk of being deleted. With Articles for Deletion, that risk is front and center. From an improvement of articles standpoint, the knowledge that the article may be deleted has spurred many an editor to make good, solid changes to the article in a short period of time. With an Articles for Discussion issue, however, I think some editors will see the discussion as no real threat, and will not make the improvements necessary to keep the article. tl;dr: Keeping the name as Articles for Deletion acknowledges that deletion is possible, while discussion may not necessarily do that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. We can fix that with the user talk notification templates. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• We don't want all discussions to come here. AFD is already high-traffic. Wiktionary has a centralized article discussion pages in the project namespace, with talk pages rarely being used, and for some time it has been showing signs of collapsing under the load. Individual article talk pages are where most discussions should occur, with Wikipedia:Requests for comment being the place to draw outsiders to those talk pages. The discussions here have a specific focus: whether an administrator hits a delete button or not. Yes, sometimes merger or redirect are the outcomes. But they should not be the initial intention. Articles should not be brought here unless an editor actually wants deletion as the outcome. Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think they would. They should come here only if the article has serious issues - the result of the discussion should be firmly focused on making the encyclopaedia better either by improving the article, by merging to a better article, or perhaps by deleting it if it does not and cannot meet policy. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But that's what nominating the article for Cleanup or merger is about, both of which use the article's talk page for discussion. Is the problem that you are addressing here that it is difficult to get focussed attention of a large number of editors on a cleanup/merger discussion? AFD isn't the solution to that, because it will confuse the object ("Are we discussing deletion or cleanup?"), introduce far too much pressure into the cleanup process (World Conference against Racism 2001 (AfD discussion) has taken me far longer than the 5 day AFD discussion period to write.), and conflict with our Wikipedia:Editing policy that it is not required that articles be perfect by a particular set time otherwise the Big Deletion Hammer Will Fall (the Wikipedia is not Citizendium, q.v., policy). Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• You know, on second thought, I like the idea of an "Expedited Cleanup" result. Once a debate is closed as Expedited Cleanup, the article is added to a category (Articles under Expedited Cleanup, perhap) and tagged as such. Editors (maybe WP:RESCUE?) would then be able to see all such articles and focus cleanup efforts. 14 days later, the article shows up on a list to be renominated. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cleanup is an ordinary editorial action. And keeping articles and sending them to Wikipedia:Cleanup has for a long time been an outcome of AFD (although less now than it used to be, because people simply apply the cleanup tags themselves directly, now). Sending bad articles that have come out of AFD with a consensus to keep and to cleanup to a focussed cleanup area, where they live on a short list for a week, could certainly be done. That's just a matter of making more regular use of {{cleanup-afd}} and some extra mechanism with an extra category associated with that template perhaps.

    Coming back if an article doesn't get cleaned up within a specific period of time is not appropriate, though. Neither is sending an article to AFD if deletion isn't what one actually wants. This is in part because, per Wikipedia:Editing policy, there is no deadline, on this volunteer project of ours, for articles to be cleaned up to (although, of course, we'd all like it to be sooner rather than later). Additionally: If an article's problem is lack of cleanup the first time around, it will be lack of cleanup the second time around, too. AFD is not cleanup, and shouldn't be used as a Big Hammer to get cleanup to happen.

    On the gripping hand: I think that it's probably a good thing that we have less "keep and send to Cleanup" than we did. It is better that editors be willing to be bold and actually clean an article up themselves directly, if they want it cleaned up, rather than simply wave it away to somewhere else where the cleanup is Someone Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A seriously bad article on a marginal or good subject can legitimately be subject to "keep and clean up" only so many times, in my view. It all comes down to whether we think a bad treatment of that subject is better than no treatment, once it becomes obvious that nobody has the resources (or can be bothered) to fix it. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

there are editorial ways to deal with this.. I've sen many articles get improved even after years of neglect. In the extreme, articles can be stubbified. The forced removal of an article makes it very hard to have a good one reinserted. DGG (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

isn't there a bot that automatically creates the next day's page with all appropriate headers? it's now 30 minutes after midnight UTC and the 9 January log isn't created yet. Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to establishing discussion before deletion as a part of this policy? The basic idea is that there should be some attempt to engage the article creator(s) prior to starting an AfD. Even in the case of a possible hoax, is there a problem with tagging the page with {{hoax}} and dropping a note on the talk page to the effect of "Is there any evidence to show this is not a hoax?" first. If there's no answer in a reasonable amount o f time (and there does not need to be a fixed limit), then go ahead and start an AfD. But if there is an answer, then evaluate the evidence before proceeding. Isn't this a more reasonable approach than the current practice that anyone can start an AfD discussion, without any prior attempt at discussion? Dhaluza (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. I also proposed something a bit less radical above for new articles. But yes, this is a good idea IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - An afd is a discussion. It doesn't require the creator of a page to determine if it is a hoax or not. If it is clearly not a hoax then contributors to the afd will easily be able to research and determine that. I think this makes the mistake that the creator is the owner of the page. --neonwhite user page talk 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll buy the hoax and similar "need to remove now" issues, but for notability issues, I'd say it makes sense. thoughts? Hobit (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Should AfD be the very first discussion of the issues in the article? Wouldn't it be better if two editors could address the issue on the talk page without unnecessarily involving the entire community in a discussion when there is a simple misconception of misunderstanding (for example fixing a fixable problem, or getting an author to request speedy delete)? There is no issue of ownership--it's common sense (not to mention common courtesy) to see if the author can address the objection. Dhaluza (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Have to agree in general. A blatant hoax is one thing, but there are too many articles that just need a simple google search to properly source on AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see the need to change the current practice. Theer is of course no opposition to discussion, but it shouldn't be required. Many of the proposals here will probably keep out some bad AfD's, but will also discourage many good AfD's by implementing more and more steps and bureaucracy before you can AfD anything. Deleting articles shouldn't be too easy (and that's one of the reasons you have to be an admin to do so, even though that is of course no guarantee against haste or mistakes), but nominating articles for deletion should be relatively easy. Everyone can edit, and any registered user can create articles and nominate them for deletion. As long as the creation remains as easy as it is, the opposite should get the same treatment, since they are both essential parts of cooperative encyclopedia building and maintaining. Fram (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing is, it's not new procedure. Check the main AFD page under what to do before nominating an article. It's just that many feel they can ignore this section.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's sromthing you should consider when you are not certain, it is not obligatory. In general, it is better if people repeatedly nominate articles for AfD in error (articles which were about notable subjects but which didn't get any time to establish that before the AfD), to just suggest to them to be more careful (to first look for sources, or when in doubt to discuss first). But to make this a requirement before every AfD would be too harsh. Similarly, everyone can create articles, but when people repeatedly create articles that get deleted anyway, it is better to suggest that they familiarize themselves more with our policies and guidelines. But we don't restrict the creation of articles for everyone because some people are a bit clueless. It's best to have as little fixed instructions as possible, and to guide those editors who make mistakes repeatedly so that they can avoid them (and the rare cases which are unwilling or unable to change their ways can of course be blocked for disruption eventually, but that is a last resort). Fram (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I probably should clarify, I'm not 100% sure mandating is the way to go. However many editors who AFD completely ignore the concept that they have any obligation to do anything other then glance at the article, make a snap decision, and then fight to the bitter end that the subject should be deleted. Any suggestion that they should have done more is treated as a personal attack. As I said, I'm not sure mandating is correct, but perhaps a stronger emphasis on the suggestions, adding a little weight to them in regards to salvageable articles, might make it more useful in guiding those who need direction in this area. Just a thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, I agree there. An AfD nomination which only says "it looks non notable" is quite a disgrace. Nominators should at least perform some minimal effort to check that the article is not about a notable subject (except obvious hoaxes), even if it is only a simple Google search (which is sufficinet for a lot of subjects, but obviously not all). When one doesn't knows a lot about the general topic of a subject, more effort should be made to be informed before nominating. But on the other hand, when I come across an article in a topic I'm particularly interested in, it is often very easy to judge on the spot if the subject is notable or not. However, when I nominate such a subject, I must take care that my "obvious" reaction is explained in more detail to editors without that background. Fram (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a new admin (I mean, really new. As of 16:00 UTC yesterday), and I was wondering the proper procedure for closing AfDs as Merge. Do I perform the merge? Is there a category I can add it to? Thanks, J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are encouraged but not required to carry out the merger. A "merge" close is a variation of "keep" since the edit history is retained. If you choose not to carry out the merger, any other editor can come behind you and do so using the content from the edit history. That said, 1) you should at least convert the merged page to a redirect and 2) it is courteous to explicitly say in your closure whether or not you actually merged any content (and to qualify that part of the action as an ordinary-editor action). That lets the other participants in the discussion make their own ordinary-editor decisions about whether there might be additional material worth moving. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But would that be a cut and paste merge, identifying in the edit summary the the info was copied from the candidate page? Also, would a Redirect close just involve turning it into a redirect? or would you need to merge page histories. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Cut-and-paste of content is how most mergers are carried out (whether the result of an AFD or an ordinary action). A merger of pagehistory is the rare exception, not the rule. When you merge pagehistories, remember that it merges all versions and sorts them by date, not by the original source or content.
      Consider the example where two pages had histories of incremental and non-controversial edits (1→2→3→4→5 and A→B→C respectively) which are later merged. The merged history could become 1→2→A→3→B→4→C→5 giving the impression that there was an edit war with large undiscussed changes back and forth. Keeping the histories separate lets future editors see how both pages evolved. The comment in the edit summary that you suggest is the best way to provide tracability of the editors' actions.
      For the same reason, a redirect close just means execute the redirect. You don't have to merge the pagehistories there either (and usually shouldn't). There are, of course, exceptions to these rules but this is the general practice. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• As Rossami says, closure as either merger or redirect does not involve you using any of your administrator tools at all. That's why they are both simply variants of keeping. Requirements for history mergers usually arise from places other than AFD. Such closures don't even involve the extra tools that you get for being an editor with an account. Merger after AFD closure is performed in the normal way that all mergers are performed, with all of the appropriate edit summaries for GFDL compliance. If it's a quite complex merger, then you can just initiate it (After all, presumably there are other editors interested in doing and then cleaning up a complex merger: the editors that opined that the article should be merged in that fashion.), by applying the tags and pointing to the AFD discussion, or do a simple redirect and note in the closure that editors can pull content out of the source article's edit history (with appropriate edit summaries for GFDL compliance) if they think that extra content should be merged. See also Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure and the pages that it links to. Uncle G (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we cannot view the history of a deleted article. However, this feature could be useful for identifying vandals later on. Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 23:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators can see deleted articles, and their history. Ask one to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

At your service! What help do you need? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to find the history of Ms. menna, but I can't find it in deletion review because it was speedily deleted. Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there something specific I need to check? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know since I'm not an admin, but I can't find a log for creation and it's not on deletion review, etc. Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This request is being answered at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Viewing a deleted page. Rossami (talk)

I asked above if it is possible to alter the closing procedure so that the index of an AfD day indicates which AfDs are closed. (For an example, see Wikipedia:BLPN.) This would allow admins to look at the TOC and quickly navigate to AfDs that are not. User:Pomte indicates that it can be done by substituting a new heading, removing the old heading and adding the closing rationale to the first parameter. It sounds like it would be a simple matter of learning a new procedure. If it's that simple, would asking admins and non-admin closers to learn this new procedure be more trouble than it's worth? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• What would you think of switching to the closure templates (and process) used at WP:DRV? That has the advantage of collapsing the closed discussion but leaving them easy to uncollapse by anyone who wants to read the result. Rossami (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It would address my concern, which is that it's more difficult to scan down the page looking for open conversations rather than looking at the TOC. I'm not really technologically clued in, however. :) How would that work with the article transcluded? Would it be an extra step for the closing admin, or could it be written into the closure template in some way? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Old_discussions often shows a list of numbers, each one linking to a debate which is still open? It's not showing the numbers now, as I think it only kicks in when a small number are still remaining open. Maybe the trip point could be raised. That would provide an easy index without the need to change anything else. Tyrenius (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have noticed that. While I think that having the TOC reflect open/closed might be useful, raising the trip point of that number would help, too (particularly if it is too difficult to implement the former). Is it difficult to raise the trip number? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If every individual AfD were put into a collapse box, so that AfDs became visually like DRVs, I think it would be annoying. (Currently, links to old AfDs work very well, but links to old DRVs require patience to use, since each link takes you to a page full of collapse boxes, and you need to figure out which one to open). I notice that editors at WP:BLPN appear to like the collapse boxes. They are going to the trouble of making a collapse box for every archived item, after the bot archives it, which seems counter-intuitive. Please leave our closed AfDs out in the open. The idea of raising the trip number for the still-open discussions seems like a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur with all that. Who knows how to raise the trip number?! Maybe as soon as the dated page becomes "old", all the open ones could be on display via a linked number from the outset. Maybe BLPN deliberately makes it more difficult with collapse boxes because of the more sensitive subject? Tyrenius (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know why BLPN uses the collapse box. (But I do quite well know that they're collapsed in archives, since I've primarily been maintaining that, since I proposed making archival automated. :)) The collapse box is not an issue for me; I like the bit about it being labeled "closed" in the TOC to ease overview; it seems to me it would make it a lot easier to quickly locate AfDs that need closure. However, as I said, raising the trip number would still help with more quickly locating open AfDs if the alternate method suggested by User:Pomte (which did not collapse box the items) is too difficult to implement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You can probably achieve the actual end that you want to achieve with style sheets. The <div>s around all closed discussions have the "xfd-closed" class, and if memory serves it was for allowing closing administrators to hide closed discussions from the per-day pages so that they see just the remaining open ones. I've never paid great attention to it, because I've never really needed to hide closed discussions myself, but there is some discussion at Template talk:Afd top and probably elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a bot which would create tables for each day's list of articles for deletions. Anybody knows what happened to it? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot I follow, User:AfDBot, updates two tables: One is the count by day, with open and closed debates listed, found here. The other is a listing of Debates by Category, found here. They seem to be up to date - but there might be another tracker out there that isn't. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this allowed? In my understanding, an AFD isn't closed because of a nom withdrawal when it does not result in a speedy keep. shoy 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks incorrect to me. You could ask the original nominator to undo his close and re-open the AfD for additional time. Due to the confusion, relisting for another five days seems advisable. When the AfD does close, an uninvolved party should do it. If the nominator declines, you could take it to WP:DRV as a procedural error and ask for a new AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's flawed on two counts. It was closed a day early and it's not up to the nominator to close it: withdrawal of nom does not invalidate an AfD. That said, it was a very confused debate. The article was wrongly named and at least some of the deletes seemed to be on the basis of therefore misunderstanding the article. I recommend accepting the status quo re this AfD, and, if it is still felt that the article should be deleted, someone else should nominate it again and have a new clean debate on the matter. A rapid re-list would be justifiable because of these circumstances, but no need to open a new debate just for the sake of it. Tyrenius (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a case where it's better to close and open another debate if necessary. Technically cogent delete arguments would supersede a nominator's withdrawal (i.e. not just delete per nom, or per <editor> who said delete per nom, as the first few comments were). But in a case like this where the nom was in error, and several editors commented delete based on that error, it would be difficult to find a proper consensus for delete. Also, since suggestions for improvement were made, it would also be reasonable to allow editors to try to improve the article, since that is the preferred outcome per policy. If there are valid reasons to delete despite the improvement, a new and more on target AfD can always be started. Dhaluza (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The real question is why after an AfD and a whole page of snarky debate is the solution still not clear to everyone that it should just be merged with existing List of restaurant chains. -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of the size of it, it may well need to be its own article, linked from the main one, but that is a matter for editorial discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my own AfDs before with 1 or 2 delete !votes present but lots of Keeps, i.e. noms where I'd obviously erred. We have to do what we think is right, at the time, for the encyclopedia - that's all. However, the particular debate you cite had far too many delete !votes to be closed through withdrawal imho. --kingboyk (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the current thinking on lists? List of breast cancer patients according to survival status and List of breast cancer patients according to occupation look like indiscriminate collections of information to me, and their potential scope is huge. As they themselves say "According to the United States National Cancer Institute, an estimated 212,920 new cases and 40,970 deaths (women only) will occur nationwide in 2006."

Do lists like this get deleted nowadays or is will it just be a waste of time nominating them? --kingboyk (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can expect them to be defended: remember its implied that they are "lists of people notable enough for WP articles who are breast cancer patients according to survival status" not the entire world. How the actual decision will go is somewhat a matter of chance. DGG (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A recurring problem on wikipedia, a consensus is reached to delete a page only for it to be instantly recreated. Pages should be "salted" until notability, etc. is achieved. Example, this page was unanimously decided for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/See You Next Tuesday (band), and now it has returned. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like, from the deletion log, that the article was deleted in May 2006 and November 2007, then a new version was recreated after a Deletion Review, and the result of that third debate was to Keep, citing additional sources that document notability. Normally, I'd agree that a deleted article shouldn't be recreated willy-nilly, but this case appears to have followed the proper process. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the new sources are very dodgey, largely minor reviews self-published webzines that really can't be used to assert notability and should be removed as they fail WP:V. Neither can a list of dates in Alternative Press. It has no more claims of notability to the last time it was deleted. --neonwhite user page talk 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took that article to DRV and there was a consensus to restore. I will be doing the same with Alesana today, which was deleted yesterday. Chubbles (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Shall Perish, I used your creation simply as an example Chubbles, it is one of many articles that are instantly recreated. Users no longer even acknowledge AFD decisions, they should be salted until notability is achieved! -RiverHockey (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

...And All Shall Perish's site, as recreated, clearly demonstrates notability. Not to be flippant, but one of the ways that an editor attempts to establish the notability of a previously deleted article is by simply recreating it with more information and better sources. This is totally legitimate and even encouraged, at this point, and I don't think that should be revoked. Chubbles (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a case of editors not understanding policy with regards to WP:N or willfully ignoring the decision by an afd? --neonwhite user page talk 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a different kind of deletion sorting: One that would consolidate CFDs that recommend "listify", and AFDs that recommend "categorize". For some time editors at CFD and AFD have noticed that some kinds of topics get bounced around. The Actors who died in their 20s and Category:Actors who died in their 20s is a perfect example. Both are up at the same time at AFD and CFD, respectively. List/articles and categories have different functions and therefore different criteria for keeping or deleting, but it's apparent to many of us who observe both fora that there is not always perfect consistency in outcome, and certainly a lot of editors involved in only one forum and not the other don't "get" the other one, and make comments based on imperfect knowledge. Thoughts? cross-posted @ WT:CFD & WT:AFD & WT:Deletion sorting --Lquilter (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way of formally requesting a merger like there is to formally requesting a deletion where the results are binding and overseen by someone independent. The only way I can find is to request an article or group of articls for deletion and give reasons why it should be deleted. Only to say actually I dont favour deletion I favour merging of the article. This is because lots of petty arguments can be bought up in a merger request which would be avoided in a more formal merger procedure.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is - WP:MERGE. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is very under utilised users and serves little to no productive purpose, a system similar to AfD need setting up with binding results similar to AfD.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The mathbot has just counted the open discussions in this log down to zero[3], but that isn't correct. So while I've noitified the bot, we stiil ahve to go through the AfDs before removing the log. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I almost don't want to ask, given that I know the issue of closure's been brought up before, but... I've been closing a couple of AfDs that have really obvious consensus to keep, and not going near those that might be a controversial decision (leave the tough jobs for the admins, clearly :p). Trouble is, given what I guess could be a backlog at the moment (87 to be closed) I'm wondering whether there's any issue with me closing debates that have really clear consensus to delete, making sure to spell out that it's a non-admin closure and then tagging the article with a speedy G6 (housekeeping). Or would that perhaps cause confusion? Thoughts/policy/consensus appreciated — alex.muller (talk • edits) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a clear consensus to Keep the article (6-0 in favour for instance) I would tend to close the article as Keep with in brackets stating that I am a non-admin. After being advised by my admin coach The Transhumanist not to do this, I stopped. There is nothing on the AFD page that states "If you are an admin do not close AFD's", therefore I cannot see what the problem is. Obviously though, only close AFD's where there is a clear consensus for Keep (obviously you cannot close AFD's that are going towards delete because you cannot delete the article). D.M.N. (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind sharing what The Transhumanist's reason is on not closing AfDs? (Just asking because I might learn something).--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what he put on my admin page about non-admins closing AFD's:

I've been reviewing the procedures concerning non-admin closings, and have come to the conclusion that they are a crock. Unanimous AFD discussions are rare, and they are so easy to close that they don't significantly add to any backlog. To close just those, you have to hunt for them, and that's a waste of time -- or you have to watch and wait for them, and what's the point of doing that? It's akin to having too many hunters and not enough ducks.

If you close non-unanimous discussions, any admin could come along and reverse them for no other reason than because you aren't an admin yet (which is pedantic).

I'm going to explore this area further.

In the meantime, you should participate in AfD discussions rather than close them. I recommend participating in discussions that are still open but that are in the archives. That way, if you come across any that are obvious keeps, you can close those rather than comment.

The Transhumanist 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

D.M.N. (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (FWIW, this discussion did help a bit with the backlog, as it reminded me to go find a couple of AfDs to close. *grin*)--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that AfD is not a vote, and even if six or seven or eight editors say 'keep it!' without refuting the arguments for deletion, it still can be deleted. Consensus at AfD isn't simple vote-stacking, or at least shouldn't be (of course, actual practice is often different). David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, surely if seven/eight people were saying Keep, and no one said Delete, surely it wouldn't be closed as Keep per WP:SNOW. If you closed it as delete, you would be going strongly against consensus, wouldn't you? D.M.N. (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:AFD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." From the Deletion Guide: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." In other words, AfDs should not be thrown by a wikiproject banding together, et al. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's an AfD, the nominator has probably said delete in the nomination, so there's at least one delete. *grin* But it should depend on the quality of the arguments. If the keeps are not giving any reason, or using bad reasons such as WP:ILIKEIT, I would argue strongly that an admin (or anyone else) should not be closing as keep. However, I also know that too many people see AfD as a vote, so I would probably either add a well reasoned delete argument (that included a comment pointing out that the keeps had not shown why the article should be kept) or at least relist it for more discussion.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, consensus. I would defy anyone to give a plausible definition of what that means in the wikipedia !voting world. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To get back to the original question in this thread, no you should not be closing even the non-ambiguous "delete" decisions as a non-admin. It does not save any time since the responsible admin will still have to review and effectively re-close the deletion debate to make sure that the "housekeeping" tag really applied. More importantly, it's a bad idea because whenever we have allowed this practice, a significant percentage of the debates start falling through the cracks. The tagging doesn't get done, the tag gets removed, etc. If you don't have the delete button, don't close a "delete" decision. A backlog of only 87 is not bad at all. We've had backlogs measured in weeks before. They all get cleaned up in time. See the prior discussions in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Deletion process for more. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all.

Those who participate regularly in AfD will probably (hopefully!) have noticed what I have seen of late, which is an increase in deletionism. The most upsetting aspect of this (disclaimer: I’m an inclusionist) is that these guys rarely check to see if sources can be found for the article in question - rather they vote delete based on there being no sources currently available. Not being sourced is not a disqualifier for notability, not being sourceable is.

I would like to propose the following text be added to the {{afd2}} template, so that it shows up on all AfD debates. The ideal location would be underneath the nominator’s comments, with a ---- placed under it to separate votes and arguments. The proposed text;

Remember, being unsourced does not make an article non-notable. Please perform a brief search for sources before arguing for deletion.

An example of this is available at User:Giggy/How AfD should look.

It is my belief that this, if nothing else, will develop better habits in those new to AfD, so that the “next generation” of AfD voters will put greater effort into checking how notable a subject is, as opposed to how much is asserted in the current version. Perhaps our current deletionists will also reconsider. I don’t know. In any case, I hope this proposal is considered.

Regards, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Search engines do not always contain sources. Majorly (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles don't always contain sources either. The whole point is that we're trying to find some. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Any user who votes to delete an article claiming there's no sources available when there blatantly are, will be ignored. So what's the problem? Majorly (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody searches for sources (which is common), the closing admin can hardly be expected to ignore...well...everyone. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no wish or desire to continue this discussion with this particular user. Majorly (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if no one does any decent research then, yes, the closing admin is expected to ignore them all. That's what a responsible admin does. That's why closures are made based on weight of argument and policy, not on nose-counting. On the other hand, research to find sources is also expected from those who think the article has a place in the encyclopedia. The responsibilities are in balance.
This is already the requirement. I'd be concerned that adding the proposed line to our instructions will exacerbate our instruction creep problems without significantly improving people's behaviors. Rossami (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be something that's better handled by talking to individual editors involved (but, yeah, I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen the "it's unsourced so delete it!" argument! LOL) --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While Dihydrogen makes a fair point, isn't there also some responsibility on those who believe an article should be included in Wikipedia to demonstrate that sources do exist, as this is one of the criteria for inclusion? I am not disputing the assertion that "not being sourced is not a disqualifier for notability, not being sourceable is", but I think we also want future editors who add material to put some effort into checking how notable a subject is as well, and I wonder if the text Dihydrogen suggests adding to the AFD template might seem to suggest this effort is not required on their part.Hobson (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It might need to be reworded to avoid that implication. However, many new users who create articles that are AfD'd early will not know about sourcing, or know how to add sources. Do we expect them too? Surely we should try and help them out by trying to find sources etc., rather than deleting their work because their knowledge of policy doesn't equal ours. I response to Rossami, I fully agree with what should be done, but again, if everyone in an AfD says "delete unsourced", do you think the admin will close it as keep? Would you? Also, in response to Fabrictramp, talking to editors is a good idea, but with the sheer number of AfDs running, it's close to impossible to contact every editor who does this sort of thing - there's just too many of them. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggested additional wording is a good idea, even though I wouldn't consider myself to be an inclusionist, probably more of an eventualist. So to answer your (probably rhetorical) question, I quite likely would be inclined to close an AfD as keep where the only deletion arguments were "delete unsourced". Thank Heavens I'm not an administrator. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you did that you wouldn't get too far... Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've already got just about as far as I'm going to get, so is one bovvered? (Sorry for dragging the tone of this discussion down by lapsing into Catherine Tate speak.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• We have DRV to fix poor AFD closes. I'm opposed to any change. There is already a lot of controversy about admins exercising their own judgement when closing afds. AFDs need to be closed by judging consensus by policy and unsourced and therefore not notable is effectively policy even if its a guideline. Saying to admins ignore the afd and do your own research is a) adding an un-necessary burden and b) furthering the idea that admins ignore the debate and make their own judgement. I'd far prefer some debate around actual examples. Otherwise this looks like a solution in search of a problem. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the proposal. The whole point is that we don't want admins using their judgement, rather we want arguments not to be incorrect (based on a lack of sourcing). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is more the other way round; too many users vote keep without there being any sources provided or without looking for any. Epbr123 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And conversely too many vote Delete without making even the briefest of checks to see if there are any sources. The point that was made in the opening posting I think, not yet to be properly addressed.

To add another dimension to this discussion, I'd even go so far as to suggest that it ought to be for those arguing that the subject is not notable to make their case, not simply to complain that the article doesn't make the case for notability. The issue surely ought to be whether or not it looks likely that a reasonable case for notability could ever be made, not whether it has yet been made. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what the notability subguidelines are for: to predict whether sources exist. Your idea is unworkable as it's easier to prove that sources exist, than to prove they don't; should I be allowed an article on Wikipedia until someone can prove no sources about me exist? Also, how do you know whether a delete voter has not even made "the briefest of checks to see if there are any sources"? Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be illogical. If you can predict that sources are likely to exist according to the "notability subguidelines", then I can equally predict that they are unlikely to exist, as in your own case, simply by reversing those notability subguidelines. (Guidelines are bad enough, but subguidelines? Please.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then there would be no problem, as using the subguidelines alone to judge notability does not require delete voters to search for sources. Although, what we're really talking about is articles that fail the subguidelines and require significant sources to establish their notability. In these cases, it's easier to prove that sources exist than to prove they don't, so the burden of proof should be on the keep voters. However, I agree that every participant in an AfD should make an effort to search for sources if none have been found. Most participants already do, but the ones that don't certainly aren't always the delete voters. Epbr123 (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that good enough Soccermeko (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the article Elektric Blue Sampler should be considered for deletion? — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see – you recently edited it to remove a PROD at expanded it. If anyone has a problem (including the person who originally added the PROD tag) they'll bring it to AfD for consideration. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been suggested on the episode notability request for comment. The proposed system cuts AfD out of the loop entirely, using the TV Wikiproject and other mediation methods.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, AFD is not the right place to discuss mergers and redirects. Those are ordinary editing decisions to be worked out by the editors of the page using the normal discussion processes. Merging content, turning a page into a redirect and reversing those acts do nothing to affect the pagehistory and can be reversed by any editor without the need to resort to special admin tools. AFD is limited to discussions about deletion because that act does affect pagehistory and requires admin-only tools.
  If the normal discussion is breaking down, there are other, normal dispute resolution processes to escalate to. Dumping everything into AFD would be a very bad idea. Rossami (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no formal procedure with binding results so either one needs setting up or this needs modifying or else ridiculous and long disputes can occur. AfD is binding relatively quick and impartial, which is perfect for sorting put potentially divisive issues.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The article talk pages are the appropriate places to discuss merger proposals. A dispute about a merger is a content dispute, and if editors can't agree then it not ought to happen. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What if the debate is degenerating into attacks and violating policy eg WP:DEMOCRACY or WP:CIVIL.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely that's cause for something contained in WP:DISPUTE, isn't it? — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have personal experience of the failing of all but arbitration it seems.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this finally appearing somewhere in talkspace... no, AfD is not the place to request merges, and it is especially not the place to send a policy-violating, violent content dispute, most of the time that will only make things worse, if someone comes along and implies "screw it, let's just delete it" and/or "alright, we've got 5 days to settle this one, folks".

People do need to take into account that admins have to make absolutely sure they make the right decision when closing deletion discussions. Therefore, I would generally stay away from all topics with which I'm familiar, in case I had a personal opinion in the issue which was conflicting with the consensus in the discussion, and I ended up closing it "my way" on a borderline case. I'm sure there are plenty of other admins out there who are cautious of this too, I've definitely heard it from some. Taking this into account, all discussions I'll be closing will be of topics I'm not familiar with. Therefore, if the notion is to merge content and the article is on, say, Spanish literature, I'm having to make edits to articles I know nothing about, which might just completely screw things up. Obviously someone who knows about Spanish literature could be brave and close it themselves, but basically what I'm saying is that merge decisions can and should be made by editors who know about the subject of the articles they're merging, rather than by admins who might not. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just put an afd tag on Edgar's fall and discovered that it had already gone through AfD once before. Editing the page again to see the instructions for a second nomination I get instructions that are really confusing. I tried to follow them, but they don't make sense, and I don't think I'm a stupid person. I eventually did a manual nomination, which also required me to add the la tag and the AfD category by hand. There has to be a better way. Even now, I don't think I have the nomination put together correctly. Corvus cornix_talk 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have twinkle, it will check for a previous nom, and create an "(xth nomination)" page. If you ever need something like this done in the future, let me know. Justin^(c)_(u) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm an old fashioned kinda guy, I don't use all these new-fangled devices.  :) I'll take you up on the offer though. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens when an article does not pass the notability test but many editors vote for keep? They vote not because it passes the test but because they want the article to stay? Bstone (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If the closing admin is doing his/her job, they won't be looking at AfD as a vote, but will instead be looking at the strength of the arguments themselves. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep reason (just as WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid delete reason), and the closing admin should be ignoring those comments. If you think the closing admin took those into account, it's perfectly fine to ask them about it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD was closed a couple days ago with a result of Delete but the article is still there. If there is a normal lag time for this procedure then ignore me. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the closing admin gets distracted and forgets to delete. I'd suggest dropping him/her a friendly note asking if this was intentional.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done by JzG — alex.muller (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If I add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 8 to my watchlist, then I won't get to see what gets added on February 9. Is there a page I can add to my watchlist that will keep track of every add to the log no matter what the date? Kingturtle (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. You have to manually add each day's log to your watchlist. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's awful. I hope someday someone can come up with a way for it to be automatic. Kingturtle (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For a while at TfD, there was a bot that created each day's page at a fixed name and then moved it into the right place. Watching that page would cause a user to watch every day's page as soon as it was created. I wonder if something similar could be done at AfD? --ais523 13:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be as simple as if you watchlisted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/ then you'd be automatically watchlisting all of them. Kingturtle (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see 2 open afd's on the same article on today's page. Not sure how to fix it myself.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading some AFDs got me thinking, so I wrote Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. Might be insane, but tossing it out for consideration. Is this a lunatic essay, or did I just describe practice that is policy? Lawrence § t/e 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably noted somewhere else in some other policy, but in any case, I like it. I'll probably end up citing it a good deal for some AfD participants. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd been saying for a while in AFDs that notability doesn't degrade over time, and functionally is permanent once established, and never once was challenged on that. Seemed to just make sense: how do you get less notable? Does someone go back in time and erase the publication of the sources to retcon them out of history? Lawrence § t/e 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We actually have a section in the notability guideline called Notability is not temporary.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but this actually addresses a branch of it, so they aren't really redundant (although one is of course an essay). David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the concept the "notability is not temporary" is a disputed point. The larger statement that it "does not degrade over time" would appear to be disputable for all the same reasons. Rossami (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such disputes, could you please give some examples etc.? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rossami, recently there was complaint over the logic of the expression of the section. There was no voiced dispute of the intent of the section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Justification Our purpose is the construction of a comprehensive encyclopedia -- that's the reason notability does not degrade over time and that it is not temporary. We intend to cover as much of the significant things in the world as we have good sources for information, and people who can write articles in English. Just as we cover all regions, if we can, we cover all time periods. In earlier periods, many things for which we now would have adequate information were not adequately source; many sources have disappeared; some require specialists to find or to read; a great many sources cover them only in outline; many surviving secondary sources have not yet been talked about in secondary works. Every winner of the events in the ancient Olympics was certainly notable; there are sources for some, but for many we do not even know the names--although probably there were once sources. The rulers of ancient city-states were notable--but for Mohenjo-daro we cannot read the language of the inscriptions. The ballads recorded in the Child Ballads are notable--the ones that did not survive to be included would have been. What we can know about, we have the obligation to record here. We are not Wikinews. We are not a blog. That does not just mean we do not intrude into the territories for which they are more suitable--it means we do things they don't. The fan wikis of today cover exhaustively the games of today. We cover to a reasonable extent as far back as we can find material. Those who do not agree with our fundamental purpose might want to work on projects that are more suitable to their concerns and interests. But of course they are also welcome here as long as they do not interfere with it. This includes both those who insist on writing about what we do not cover; it also means those who try to prevent us from writing about what we do. DGG (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree. Saying that something is not temporary is not exactly the same as saying it does not fade away. For example, love may be temporary or fade away. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. If anything, continuing to be known through history makes something more notable, not less so. (At the same time, we're really not Wikinews, we shouldn't be writing about things which were fleetingly "in the news" and then faded away. That's not a case of notability fading—it was never there in the first place, in such a scenario.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to the Notability section "Notability is not Temporary". Gavin Scott (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case where an article is to be merged, any attempt at a redirect without merging can and should be reverted. If you see any article that has been redirected but was supposed to logically be merged, feel free to merge the content or revert, as to not merge the content is destroying content that, according to a majority of people, should exist in some form or another. - 24.179.176.142 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not the obligation of the closer of the AFD discussion to carry out the merger. Redirecting without merging is not destroying content in any form. The content is still fully available in the pagehistory. Any future editor can pull the content out and complete the merger and can do so without needing to resort to any special admin tools or permissions. If a redirect has been made without merging or if the merging was done poorly in your opinion, just fix it. But be ready to tactfully defend your opinion because presumably the other editor did not feel that the content was worthwhile to merge. Reversion of a redirect solely because the other editor did not carry out a suggested merger would not be considered a good-faith edit. Rossami (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that people like to be lazy and randomly hide content because they don't like to improve the Wiki at all it seems, but it's extremely counter-productive to redirect to an article and do nothing that would even remotely resemble merging, because not only would no one assume that the article was not merged, thusly not causing them to go into the history to find the last revision with the content that should have been merged. Ignoring a merge result would be on level with ignoring a keep or delete result. The Starman item first appeared in the most significant Mario game ever made, and it's been, on multiple occasions, the focus of the series. If they thought that it didn't warrant existing, they could open a discussion, or wait a month and perform another AfD. However, since the overwhelming majority wanted it to be merged, the person who redirected the article should have taken the extremely minimalistic task of cutting the text and pasting part or all of it in the target article. - 24.179.176.142 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

as i've said elsewhere and probably here as well, I do not agree with Rossami. His view may unfortunately still be the standard view here, but it is not realistic. The proof that it is not realistic is the step which all too often follows redirect--leave the redirect, but remove the entire discussion of the subject from the main article, or leave only the bare name. The content is not utterly destroyed, and an experienced WPedian can find it, but it is effectively hidden from the ordinary reader, who will hardly know how to follow the redirect to see the pre-existing history. It took me some time here before I became fluent at this here myself.

When a merge is the conclusion of an AfD, and a redirect is done instead without merger, such redirect is not a good faith edit, but the unwarranted removal of material in opposition to consensus, and any editor can and should revert. Such at least I hope will be the outcome of the current arbcom case on episodes. I personally would go further: any editor who does such a thing deliberately is defying consensus, and removal of material in opposition to consensus is destructive to both the encyclopedia and the community--in other word, is vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR, and vandals should be first warned, and if necessary blocked, regardless of their status, in this as in other cases. Any admin following the advice above, to treat the reversion of vandalism as not a good faith edit, is abusing his authority: the situation is exactly the opposite. There is a great deal of material at WP that in my opinion should be summarily removed. I do not try to do so, and I would not do so even if no punishment would follow. i did not come here to be dictator. I did not become an admin to enforce my views on articles, but rather my views on civilized behavior in a community. I have confidence that my fellow admin above is in fact here for the same purpose as I, and will realise the error of his position,. DGG (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read that the closing admin may nominally perform the merge by simply dumping the main content of the losing article into a convenient place in the winning article. He then leaves it up to editor consensus what should be done specifically with the material. I can't find this advice written down, though, in the current deletion policy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See the last sentence of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. Rossami (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Rossami. This 'It must be fully done immediately, or it doesn't count' attitude sounds suspiciously like a set up for the next chapter of the TV Episode fights. It also sounds like a great way to create a massive backlog at AfD, and tie up dozens of Admins in merge discussions across wikipedia, where if they don't stick with the page for weeks, it'll be reverted and the old pages reinstated rapidly. Far better for the admins to redirect and notify at the merge to article, leaving regular editors to handle the consensus based merge. ThuranX (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rossami and ThuranX, closing editors (you don't have to be an admin to close a merge) can't be expected to perform the merge, they often have no background nor interest in the article (or they would have participated in the discussion or at least wouldn't be neutral). Closing editors should (almost) never complete the merge as that would involve extensive editing beyond the scope of the XfD discussion, would tend to taint the closer's neutrality, and might appear to suggest that the completed merge as he or she has accomplished it was specifically the result of the debate, whereas the result of the debate was of course simply "merge" not a specific end product. It is probably a best practice to just dump everything and leave it, for clarity for new editors, but that is not a completed merger by any stretch. I would also note that when editing outside of an XfD, a merger very well may result in nothing left of the source but a redirect.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

hey, on this part I do agree with Rossami. The role of the closer is to close. Sometimes the merge is really obvious or trivial, and the closer might as well do it, but in general it should be up to the editors of the articles involved, and disagreements pursued through dispute resolution, not AfD. And of course a merger can properly leave nothing but a redirect, as when one merges two almost identical articles, or an article whose entire content is contained within another. At it can be right to dump everything and leave, as when the intended effect is a simple concatenation. But, as the guide says " If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the article merger process by tagging the article." -- to make sure everyone knows the result, and leave it to them.

I too am very eager to avoid a flood when the Arb Com dam breaks. We really need to figure out how to resolve in a suitable manner all the pent-up AfDs. My feeling at this point, is that in some cases where merge seems obvious, they might just be withdrawn & the merge pursued at the articles; otherwise, it may be best to relist some of them, giving a fairly extended period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 12 February 2008

The problem is that using the attitude of "get it done later" never gets it done. I've never seen a redirect get fixed and turned into the merge it was supposed to be "eventually". - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the outcome was evidently really "redirect". It's not the job of the admin closing the AfD to do the merge. Whether to merge, what to merge, and where to merge it are editorial decisions, not administrative ones. If the admin, acting as an editor, wants and has time to do so, more power to them. Otherwise, the page history is intact, and whoever wanted the merge done can do it. And DGG, calling redirections vandalism is way over the top. Redirections are edits, and they take away nothing, or at least no more than any other edit takes away what it changes. It's all in the history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But performing a redirect with the edit summary "merge" would be misleading, would you agree? And placing redirect templates on redirects is best practice, in order to help keep track of the redirects, you would agree with that as well? Doing a redirect with the edit summary of "merge" and not doing anything to help keep track of what happened does not help others. Sure, it is in the page history, but helping others see what has happened is essential in the collaborative editing of an encyclopedia. Redirecting with the edit summary: "redirecting as part of merger, don't have time to complete the merger" would be more honest. But really, we need a much larger debate about what redirect, merge and similar options mean. There is a lot of basic misunderstanding that people have - are the current pages about these options misleading or just not read by those using the terms? Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, for small articles that result in merge, some editors don't even participate in the AfD debate. So the only people who could participate in merging it are uninterested parties. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed this page for deletion. Everyone take a glance at it and see that it is nothing more than a poor list and a bunch of links. The page offers nothing. I inserted the prod which has been contested because I would like to see the main contributors to the article drastically clean the article. Isn't that the purpose of the prod. You have 5 days to clean it? Had I not thought the article was so bad I would have just put a standard clean up tag. However, the page at its current state offers nothing to Wikipedia. Just look at the list of facts. 1999 was the 1st year, 2003 was the 4th year, etc. Then its nothing but links. I would propose deletion of it or at the very least have it merged under fantasy sports as a whole eliminating the awful lists and links. -UWMSports (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriately listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 27 -UWMSports (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

please delete this page Nymphodorus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.169.7 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the deletion sorting projects, and they're very useful. I think it would be worth adding a line just above Consider checking "Watch this page" that says Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination. (Though I'd probably want to link to a better page than that one, on that actually just lists the templates to use.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, consider them at best a waste of time and at worst actively harmful when they have the unintended consequence of increasing the partisanship of a debate. If you want to add such a sorting tag, I won't stop you from wasting your time but adding that line as a requirement or even as a "suggestion" would be instruction creep and not, in my opinion, good for the project as a whole. Rossami (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

the people from the project are not necessarily supportive of low quality articles on their subject--it's usually quite the opposite. We want to increase informed participation. It should be required, not just suggested. DGG (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Having people interested in music being able to focus on deletion discussions relating to music causes "partisanship"? That's like saying "let's not let anybody know what we're doing, since they might point out that we're wrong". —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, when I'm nominating something for deletion, I like to notify the appropriate wikiproject. Often those participants know about resources for checking notability that I'm unaware of. Some of the wikiprojects have also helped me to confirm items are hoaxes. I'm not fond of instruction creep, but it is nice to know where the resources are, and it's not always easy to know how and where to notify the projects. (And I've made a note of the link to deletion sorting template -- thanks Torc2!) --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this looking? So far I see three editors supporting and one opposing. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 13:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Change made. Let's see who notices. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:24.12.117.102 posted some comments here about the article Heather Kuzmich - I think the comments are better placed on that article's talk page, so I moved them there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one. The article is a thin (three line) stub about a software package, with only an EL to the official site as a source. Nommed for deletion on 29 Feb, the nom and two seasoned editors recommended Deletion, with one dissenting comment. Seems to be a clear consensus, and I am inclined to delete - but, the nom is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, which indicates that the nom may have been in bad faith and should be procedurally closed. Could I get some advice or a second set of eyes on this article's case? I know the nom should be closed, but... If it were me, I'd just delete and be done. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your instincts serve you well, young padawan. :D In other words, if deletion is what you are feeling, go with it! ArcAngel (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have closed it as delete, there was a very strong consensus for deletion regardless of the nominator being blocked. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My thanks for the quick response. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I closed two Buffy article AfDs. For the record, I am not a fan of those shows. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SoftVideo, created 6 March 2008, is almost an exact duplicate of TruDef, which is has an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef that was started earlier on 6 March 2008. What's the best way to handle this? I've already commented about it in the AfD. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I redirected SoftVideo to TruDef, since there is only one subject. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick question about the process of closing old AFDs. If the closer determines that the nomination needs to be relisted, is it accepted practice to remove the nomination from its original date index? If it is, then I've noted that a lot of people don't — but if it isn't, then some consideration needs to be given to the fact that a relisted item will still count as an open AFD on its original date, even though it probably shouldn't. So if the general practice is to leave the open discussion on its original nomination date's page, then Mathbot should also remove relists from its open count (although it should certainly tally them as relists rather than closures.) Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for Deletion page is clear that when an AFD is relisted the listing should be removed from the original log for the reason you have identified. Anybody consistently not doing so should probably be pointed to the deletion process page. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Many editors don't know it, but the WP:BLP1E shortcut currently links to a section of the WP:BIO guideline and it has been linking there since December 11. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem. Noroton (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there an afd warning template for multiple afd nominations? --neonwhite user page talk 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you warn a user who made an AfD? Just use a custom message if you must. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The only circumstance I can see is if they were nominating lots of articles in a bad faith or disruptive fashion, in which case the templates for Disruption would serve. If they are disruptive or combative during the debate itself, that'd go to one of the decorum templates - NPA or so forth. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking, how about creating a minimum time for AfDs of around 24 hours, that way every time zone has had a chance to see it. Thoughts/Opinions/Molotov cocktails? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify. Do you mean at least 24 hours before we have a speedy close of the debate? You realize that barring a speedy close, the normal process is that debates are kept open for a mimimum of five days before they are closed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean a bare minimum for any AfD closure, including speedies and what the admin perceives to be WP:SNOW deletions. The normal process may be five days but many (or most) AfDs are closed long before they are fully up. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-snow speedy deletions are not part of the AfD process. They are articles that qualify under the separate WP:CSD process but for whatever reason, were taken to AfD when a criteria for speedy deletion applied—articles that should never have been brought to AfD, and would have been deleted if tagged for speedy deletion in the first place. Such articles are generally deleted not through any admin reading the AfD debate, but after considering whether the article meets the CSD tag placed, after being found through CAT:CSD. If thereafter deleted through that separate process, the AfD becomes moot, and any subsequent "early" closure is a ministerial act. So your proposal relates really only to speedy keeps and snow deletions that are deleted less than 24 hours after nomination. Of those two classes, how many are there and how many of those are a problem? Most speedy keeps are obvious. Most snow deletions are as well. So, is this is a solution in search of a problem?

You are not even close to the mark when you say "The normal process may be five days but many (or most) AfDs are closed long before they are fully up." The vast majority of AfDs are closed five or more days after going up and of those that don't, the majority are not in question, either because they are obvious speedy keeps, nominations withdrawn, or tagged for speedy deletion and deleted through that separate process, with the AfD ministerially closed after such deletion.

An analysis of any given day will show this. I arbitrarily chose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. 90 debates were listed for that day. The results are: 69 closed after 5 days; 4 withdrawn nominations which don't count, 2 speedy keeps (both obvious), 1 speedy redirect; 14 speedy deletions under CSD which don't count, and no snow deletions whatever. I'm sure there are days where there are more of the two classes of debate closures this could relate to, but I think this shows that any policy revision would be to address a tiny subset of articles taken to AfD; probably too small a group to merit the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this change is necessary. A snow close isn't likely to change just because some people in (say) Australia get a chance to see it (no, really, Aussies aren't that different). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not us, you're the different ones... :) And OK, I see the point, I just tended to notice an number of AfDs being closed pretty early for a full round-the-board consensus but I recognise now that they were not the majority. Never mind then. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbie, and am starting to try and figure out what to do. I came across this article, and it looks like a bored teenager added this. But, I'm not sure what to do. King Pickle (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, good question. One approach is to look at the history tab; in this case you can see that there are a few edits in the past, plus several recent ones from the anon IP. If you click on each date you can see the iterations, and in this case you can see that the IP hijacked an OK stub. I've reverted it to the last decent version. Good catch! --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't want to inadvertently delete Wikipedia!--King Pickle (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been attempted before... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there specific criteria under which an AfD can be closed early? Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (an involved party, after a fashion) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth stating: "as no reason for deletion has been asserted." I've never seen this rationale for closing before, and want to make sure the closing is above board. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed more at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AfD throttling?. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To head off some of the more heated AfDs here, I've been working on a supplementary notability guideline for criminal acts that receive a lot of media attention. Trying to get some wider feedback in an effort to find consensus. Have a look at WP:FELONY WP:N/CA. Thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any statistics on AfD. Like the number proposed for deletion per month(or other period) the number of those then deleted. ChessCreator (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Same inquiry really. Isnt there some statistic page like with the Rfas? --Camaeron (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (See User:Camaeron/Rfa if you've no idea what I'm on about..!) --Camaeron (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a "guide to AfD"s? Also, who exactly is allowed to close an AfD? Would I, as a non-admin, be able to close an AfD, say with (0/15/0) according to WP:Snow? Thanks for your answers and please provide me with reading-material *must...read...more...wiki..guidelines...* (I hope it's not just me addicted to them..!) Thanks --Camaeron (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Typically, it's accepted that non-admins can only close snowball keeps. The rest should be left to admins. I'm not sure if there is a page for your question, if there is I'm sure it'll be found shortly. Wizardman 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is similar to what you want, I believe. Wizardman 13:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I am very grateful! --Camaeron (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the governing section is Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. WP:NAC is a personal essay written to expand on some points and synopsize others but if there is ever a disagreement between the two pages or if you want to find all the detail that led up to the decision, the Deletion process page has precedence.
Another useful page you should consider reviewing is the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which covers lots of topics about the deletion decision-making cycle, not just the closure question. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why this article is being considered for deletion. First of all, it is a Worldwide entity, like Microsoft, HP, IBM, and others. They are in 65 countries and have been around since the 80's. I think this entry would be nice to have considering that it is a global entity, and people worldwide could benefit from this information as well as add their two cents on Futurekids.

This article can be found here: Futurekids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.66.50 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments supporting or opposing deletion should be left at the specific article's AfD to be considered, which you can find here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurekids. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I find myself wondering when an admin is going to close this AfD out. Already, at the time I am writing this, the discussion has reached 65 kilobytes. I'd close it myself, but I already have. It was overturned with the use of SNOW, from a discussion on DRV. The main reason I closed it was because there isn't an actual reason to delete, from what I can tell, and to prolong it, would do exactly what it is doing now. There is already a consensus to keep the article, by far. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask, I'd say there's a majority, but not "consensus, by far". Plus it's only been 48 hours. What's the rush?--AndrewHowse (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering how large it has to get before someone closes it. It was getting pretty heated there for a while. Plus I've noticed that since its been on AfD, the article has gotten larger and cited heavily. It could probably go to featured articles.

When I said consensus, I did mean by a majority. That is, if you take out the ip addresses that have edited 6-7 times before voting. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Size of the discussion log isn't a criterion for closing. I think we need to be careful about IPs; just because an IP shows a few edits, one shouldn't assume that the editor is inexperienced (could have edited under an account or under other IPs), nor yet that inexperienced is the same as "unworthy of consideration". Further, there is still no deadline! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a new AfD discussion five days ago (Jakob Trollbäck) and there are still no comments. What should I do? Add it again to a newer log? Vints (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for you to do anything at the moment. If nobody comments on the AFD today, then tomorrow an admin will almost certainly relist the discussion on the latest daily log to obtain some comments on it. We count the five days as being up once today has finished. Davewild (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have a few comments now, but it may end up being relisted anyway for more discussion. KnightLago (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would someone who knows how to do so add in links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cats(2), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cats and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cat in one of those nifty box things. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Added it for you. Check the dif to see the code :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have in several cases seen an AfD nomination that was not completed; e.g. the editor added the afd tag to the article but then did not add it to the deletion log, did not create the discussion page, or both. In one case, since I had a conflict of interest relating to the article, I finished the AfD as an act of good faith. However I have also seen the template removed because the nomination was not finished. What is the proper thing to do in this situation? Is it the responsibility of the nominator to make sure the nomination is completed, or else it will be ignored? Or should editors finish nominations for articles they think should be kept? Or is it just up to them?

Whatever the decision it should probably be codified in the WP:AFD page, because this isn't an unheard of occurrence, and it's likely to cause conflict when an AFD tag is removed, even if the nomination wasn't completed. For example, List of YouTube celebrities was put on AFD (for the third time), but the nom wasn't finished, so somebody removed the tag, but then somebody else reverted the removal. What's the right thing to do? --TexasDex ★ 06:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can figure out enough to do it, complete the nomination, noting that you are doing so administratively and (assuming this is the case) that you don't necessarily agree with the nominator's opinion. (If the only mistake was failing to add the page to the log, that's easy.) If, however, you can't figure out the intended deletion rationale - if the person only added the AFD tag and nothing more - then removal of the tag is appropriate with the editsummary that it can be retagged if the person can articulate their rationale. Rossami (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I would add to the above is that if I can't figure out the rationale and I remove the tag, I put a quick, friendly note on the editor's talk page letting them know what I did and offering to help walk them through the AfD steps if they want to continue the process.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The absence or presence of a rationale is a good point. In the YouTube celebrities case the person did add it to the log, but didn't add a discussion page, meaning there was no rationale. Somebody did in fact gave him notice on his talk page, but he hasn't re-nominated the article.

Based on that I'd add a section to this page saying:

First, wait at least an hour to give them time to finish it--they may be in the middle of the nomination process. If after an hour the person hasn't done anything then:

• If the nominator forgot to add the nomination to the log or forgot to add the AfD tag to the article, but they created a discussion page with a rationale, complete the nomination for them even if you disagree with it.
• Check the nominator's history for a rationale. It might be in their edit summary, or they may have made the discussion page in the wrong place. If you can find a clear statement of their rationale then fix or finish the nomination yourself--even if you don't agree with the nominator--noting on the discussion page that you are completing the nomination for that user.
• If the person did nothing but add the AfD template to an article, with no rationale or explanation, then use your judgment: If you think the article should be deleted, finish the nomination yourself. If you don't think the page should go up for AfD, then remove the tag and contact the nominator explaining the issue and offering to help re-nominate the article if they explain their rationale. This is the ONLY circumstance under which you may remove the AfD tag without concluding the AfD discussion, and you MUST contact the editor to let them know what you have done.

Does this sound good? --TexasDex ★ 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it sounds good to me, because that's about exactly what I do. :) Adding the part about waiting is good -- someone unfamiliar with the AfD process (and man, do I love Twinkle for AfDs!) may take a while to read through all the steps. Always nice to give them a little reading time before swooping in.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that AfDs lacking the discussion page should be helpfully completed by others. If the discussion exists but not the log entry, then it's fine to create the log entry. Though I can't recall more than one example of non-creation of the *nominator statement*, I would offer this one as evidence that trying to complete someone else's malformed nomination may do more harm than good. (The person on whose behalf the AfD was created went ahead and tried to do a 'non-admin close' by removing the AfD template from the article while the AfD discussion was still running, and that led to general chaos). Generally I expect to see an actual discussion page, as well as a signed nominator statement, before I believe that an AfD is real. By signing the statement, the nominator is formally putting his reputation on the line that it's a good faith nomination and he's done his necessary homework. No-one else can do that for him.

No objection to someone else taking over the nomination, if they independently believe the article should be deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll counter with this example. I really don't know if the article should be deleted or not, but I finished the nom, and can't see a problem with having finished it. It probably comes down to how well the person who is finishing the nom understands what the original editor was intending.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the words from "If you can find their rationale" to "If you can find a clear statement of their rationale" to avoid misinterpretation or misunderstanding. This policy might result in a few AfDs that have an overwhelming keep result, but I think that completing the nomination whenever reasonably possible will minimize the chance for anger or accusations of violating policy. Removing an AfD tag is somewhat taboo and understandably so because it makes people think you're stifling discussion and being arbitrary. The AfD nomination that I finished was for an article that I didn't want deleted, but I had a conflict of interest in it, so I figured that the most proper thing to do was to let the discussion happen and avoid being accused of manipulation, even though the concerns had been fixed and the ultimate result was overwhelmingly keep. Finishing it is least likely to cause controversy, and I think that would make a good policy. --TexasDex ★ 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The things you are suggesting are the right things to do but I don't think we want to add them to the already-long instructions page. Instruction creep is a real and constant problem for us, especially on the pages around deletion. I don't think that this problem occurs often enough or that it's a controversial enough point to justify the extra text. Common sense and the occasional courteous reminder should be sufficient.
But if you disagree, the right place for it is probably the Guide to deletion which is where we have a lot of this kind of helpful but not strictly essential commentary. Rossami (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)