Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

AfD remover template?

Is there a template that matches the sentiments that I tried to express to User:Eldestport? If not, does anyone think a template like this would be useful? (I've personally had to write things like this several times) The article and AfD fields could be filled by a variable like is used on {{test-n}}. For the sake of generality, the "creator" part could be omitted, but more often than not this is the case. Any thoughts? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole series of them, they start with {{drmafd}}. Tito <span style="color:#008000;">xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured there probably was at least one, but you never know. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You can check out a wide range of warning templates at Category:User warning templates, too. I put some of the ones I though that I would use most frequently in my userspace here. There are a lot of slight variations, such as whether you want to include the name article that the person vandalized or not. -- Kjkolb 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

How come I have to ask other editors to complete the three step process to make articles for deletion? I put the stuff it tells me to copy and paste on articles for creation. Is that good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.87.103 (talk • contribs)

I guess since it requires creating a new page for step 2, which IP editors can no longer do, you need an account. They might help you on articles for creation, but the best bet is to just create an account. It takes a few seconds. --W.marsh 02:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

'planehuggers' page

This page, Planehugger, has been deleted twice but keeps getting posted again as a new page, most recently by User:RayAntoky. The purpose of it is to malign anyone who thinks that actual planes hit buildings on 9/11 (as opposed to fake planes, missiles, drones, holograms, etc.) with the term 'planehugger.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.158.7 (talk • contribs)

Now deleted (and, at least temporarily, protected). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehugger for the original deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the future, any recreation of deleted content falls under the speedy deletion criteria. Just tag the article {{db-repost}}. —Cuivi é nen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:58 (UTC)

Have you hugged your plane today? -- Kjkolb 13:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but then have you have snuzzled a wuzzle today? -Splash^talk 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they're with their mother this week. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Political landscaping and urban design in Ireland

I've made a hash of this, it's a second nomination. Can anyone help? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. MartinRe 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD policy

What is the policy regarding AfD. I understand editors are invited to vote Keep-Delete. But what if they use invalid argunents violating Problems that don't require deletion.? Are those votes counted? Nomen Nescio 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion based on weight of opinion, not raw numbers, so all comments will be taken into account by the closing admin. You cannot simply discount opinions with reasons you regard as invalid, or else you will end up with a situation where a simple "Delete." would have more influence than "Delete because X". The latter is more useful, as if the result is keep, editors interested in that article will know what its perceived shortcomings are. Regards, MartinRe 13:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that was helpful. As to discounting comments. When people advocate an article should be deleted because it is POV that certainly contradicts wikipedia policy.

Nomen Nescio 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends a bit on what they meant by "delete because it is POV". Articles which fail to live up to the NPOV standards should be repaired if possible. However, we've also discovered that some article titles and/or topics irredeemably violate the policy of NPOV. Those irredeemable articles may require deletion regardless.
MartinRe is absolutely correct that deletion discussion are discussions, not votes. I would modify his reply a bit with the observation that users whose comments contradict standing policy or our traditions are given less weight than comments which are well-grounded in our policies and standards. Making that judgment call can be difficult and is one of the reasons we ask administrators to close controversial decisions - they've been here long enough to understand the traditions and policies. Rossami (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your comment. What they meant by POV as reason to delete can be seen in the AfD regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Since I fail to be objective I was interested in an objective view on how this would be judged (what is AfD exactly?). Since in my POV the advanced arguments are invalid and realizing I am biased, I simply was curious as to the general principal of AfD. Sincerely

Nomen Nescio 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Un-delete "Irish secret Service"

Im trying to get the article about the ISS undeleted, I think this is where im supposed to post not sure though. I have provided proof of the ISS' existence http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/speeches/estimates2006.pdf, pg. 36 of this document makes a direct reference to the budgeting of an organisation called the "secret service". Hope this makes a difference 83.70.203.21 18:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not here. See Irish Secret Service which tells you where, or the talk page for that article. Шизомби 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Former versions of several pictures

Hi, I don't know if it's here that I should post this. Anyway, could any administrator delete the former versions of one map I have created. Image:Paris_metropolitan_area.gif I have created all those versions by myself. If there are so many of them it's because many contributors have asked for smaller things to be changed with time. Anyway, they take nearly 10MB of wasted space.

There's also a former version of this image which should removed. Image:Abbesses_stairs.jpg Indeed, I've unfortunately uploaded first an unnecessary larger version. I'm really sorry to ask this and I'll try to be more cautious in the future. Respectfully yours. Metropolitan 19:47 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reformatted your request a bit to show the links to the images rather than pulling the images in themselves. I hope I haven't changed your intent. But I also want to confirm your request. You are not asking that the image be entirely deleted, merely that the prior versions be deleted. The Abbesses stairs request makes sense given the size of the first version. I'll take care of that for you. On the Paris map image, are you sure that there is no value to the history that led up to the latest version? If you're sure, just affirm it here and any admin can take care of it. Rossami (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about showing only the link to an image without picturing it in itself, I didn't know how to do this earlier ! As for the historical versions we should keep, you're probably right, that would be better. I would consider three versions as deserving to be kept as they show the evolution of the model used. Those versions are as following :

20 February 2006
25 February 2006
24 March 2006

The other versions have some factual inaccuracies and as such, they have no valuable reason to be kept. You can erase them all. Thanks again for this ! Metropolitan 21:54 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log yesterday -problem.

The page for yesterday's deletion log seems to be linking to the march 25th deletion log. JoshuaZ 00:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've written the function for LDBot to handle this, it should update every night at 0:00 UTC. Cheers --light darkness^(talk) 04:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

AFDBot

Hello everyone, as I'm sure you've all noticed, AFD bot hasn't worked since mid-March. AllyUnion isn't around to fix it either... I would be willing to modify LDBot (With permission of WT:B) to create the new AFD days, and list the new pages on the main WP:AFD page. If there are no objections here, I'll list it on WT:B, and get it up and running ASAP. Any questions, let me know. --light darkness^(talk) 03:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I think it helps to have those tasks automated, and since it doesn't seem like AFDBot is coming back in a timely fashion... a new bot would seem to be in order. --W.marsh 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Since Bluemoose said it was a good idea (And he's on the committee to approve bots, I went ahead and let the bot create the new AFD day, with success I might add. Check out it's contribs at Special:Contributions/LDBot. I need to figure a few more things out for the automatic moving of AFD subpage links on the main WP:AFD page. I won't touch that page for a few more days, once there is more consensus. Any questions, let me know. --light darkness^(talk) 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Bot is all done, I've already let it do the updating of the new AFD pages (There was an error today, but Royboy fixed it before anyone saw it, it was a problem with me switching to a new host, that is all sorted out now). I'm gonna let the current and old discussion updates run in my namespace for a few days, since I won't be able to monitor a live update til sunday night. If anyone doesn't have any objections, I can have LDBot fully functional on Monday. --light darkness^(talk) 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Bot is active. --light darkness^(talk) 02:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD listing and IP editors

Recently I have noticed a couple of cases where IP editors have tried to put up articles for AfD. Which is not possible for them to complete properly as they are unable to create the article's deletion discussion page. Leaving articles with AfD notices on them but no proper nomination/listing or creative but messy solutions like this one [1]. Can we add a note or the like to the "How to list pages for deletion" section pointing out to IP editors that they are unable to do so due to the page creation required for the second stage.--blue520 15:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple of lines to Template:AfD footer - feel free to adjust the wording as appropriate. — sjorford (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of IFD tags from images

I recently tagged two images for deletion per the following guidelines: WP:NOT - "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted." Example reason from the IFD page - "UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia." Following the procedure listed on the Images for Deletion page, I tagged Image:Playing.jpg and Image:PoodleM1.jpg for image deletion, added the notices to the user's talk page, and listed the images for discussion under April 7 on the IFD page.

The user then removed the notice from his/her talk page with an edit summary of "rvv" [2], removed the tags from the images [3] and [4], and then removed the entry from the April 7 section of the IFD page [5]. What is the purpose of IFD if the uploader may remove ifd tags at will? 65.127.231.10 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Once an article has survived deletion. Are you or are you not allowed to remove the tag that says that the article was nominated for deletion on the following date etc. I don't reckon that this should be allowed as valuable information could be lost in talk page archives. But I'm just checking since I've seen this happen on one article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not remove those tags. They are a historical record of the previous requests for the article's deletion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

Could some more folks take a look at List of deaths attributed to computer or video games, I am worried, given the comments on the deletion nomination seem to reveal the commenters have not read the page, that this is not getting a fair hearing. Thanks, For great justice. 20:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yaxley (Harry Potter)

I posted a query on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Yaxley (Harry Potter) about 3 days ago but am afraid it probably won't be seen. I was wondering why the result of the deletion was redirect and not deletion if the deletes outnumbered the redirects? After all Yaxley is mentioned -- not even seen -- but once in the entire series. I think NTK's reasoning as seen in the archive is pretty plausible. Thanks. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well first off, AFD isn't a strict vote, it's a discussion — the closing administrator should interpret all the comments (as well as the votes) and come up with the most acceptable solution. In this case, the key point from the discussion is that nobody thinks Yaxley should have a standalone article. Both a redirect and deletion achieve this, but deletion is more appropriate when the article content is being removed from Wikipedia completely. In this case nobody was advocating removing Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter as far as I can tell. Redirects are more transparent than deletion — only administrators can see deleted histories, but anybody can see the history of a redirect. Also, even though it is fairly unlikely that this redirect will actually be used, it does discourage anybody from recreating a page at this title in the future. Finally, as Mailer Diablo said, redirects are cheap — they take minimal server resources and database space, so it doesn't really matter if we have more than we need. — sjorford (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the comments. I sort of was with the idea that nobody's going to type in "Yaxley (Harry Potter)" but oh well. If redirects are cheap, that's fine. :-) --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ammendment to deletion policy

This is a proposal that seeks to change our approach to the deletion process by removing content of a page as a criterion for deletion, only the topic can be judged in deletion debates. Please discuss the proposal at the talk page. Thanks a lot. Loom91 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archives as sources

I noticed that this proposal has not been linked from here, while it is relevant to some extent: Wikipedia:Archives as sources. - Liberatore(T) 19:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Request Deletion for Atomic Ducks

Nonsense and they are not a real band, everything in the artical is 100% False.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake227 (talk • contribs)

question about afd consensus

Let's say that the majority of the votes are split between merge and delete. Since both things result in a deletion, wouldn't it make sense for a beauracrat to delete, and for the option of including content to be open by moving it somewhere else(like an archive)? It seems counterintuitve to keep, which is farther from both sides of consensus. I just dont know the policy on this. Thanks for informing me, Urthogie 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, merge does not result in deletion. When merged, and article can not be deleted, in order to retain attribution history. It's also a useful reference, in case somebody does a redirect, without fully merging the pertinent information (this is after all a wiki, and one's edits are subject to change). In the case you describe, after the AFD, anybody (not just the closing admin) can and should perform a merge/redirect. We have AFDs for deletes, because it's permanent, and only an admin can do it. Admins often don't perform merges after AFDs where they are requested. They may if they wish, but that's not really their "obligation". They just gauge what if any consensus is found, and if there's a consensus to delete, they delete. That's all they need to do. --Rob 18:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

p.s. When you said "beauracrat", I assume you meant "admin". --Rob 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

One sec though.. isn't there a consensus that an article should not exist in such cases?Urthogie 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit, remember that we are required to retain attribution history of kept content. It's a condition of the GNU Free Documentation License. If the content is merged into another article, we have to retain tracability of the people who contributed to the content. The easiest way to do that is to merge the content and redirect the old article to the new one. (There are some other techniques that can be used if the situation demands it, but they are more complex and time-consuming and have proven to be error-prone.) The result is that even though a "merge" opinion generally means that the user thinks the article should not exist independently, it is very different from a "delete" opinion. In deletion, the page and content go away. We have no obligation to maintain the attribution history. In "merge", we have to keep the attribution history. That's why "merge" opinions are generally interpreted as a flavor of "keep" even though, as you say, there may be a consensus that an independent article should not exist. Rossami (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why isn't their a second vote to decide if the article should be merged or deleted?--Urthogie 18:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mostly because AfD isn't a vote in the first place. Andy Saund e rs 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Why isn't it established that there's a consensus for merging or keeping, so then the discussion could move on to forming a consensus for which one was better?--Urthogie 10:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because anyone can propose a merge at any time. One typically places {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags on the candidate articles, waits a few days to see if there is discussion, and carries it out. It's not a formal community process the way AfD is, because it can be reversed, but there is still a consensus gathering phase, at least in most cases. An editor who just merges without prior notice often is reverted, which then spurs the discussion... That's what I've seen in the past anyway. (a similar argument applies to "move", since it too is reversable, usually). ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Then perhaps merge should not be a proper vote at AFD, if its whole process is done at the article(s) themsel(f)/(ves)?--Urthogie 13:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment about List of Warez Groups

I have seen that List of warez groups has been AfD'd twice for various reasons. Why does this list still exist? The person who takes care of it religiously states that he was involved in the warez and cracking community for a number of years, and I wonder if he is using this for his own nostalgic purposes rather than being productive for Wikipedia.

Do we necessarily need a list of all of these warez groups? Why can't the article be merged into something that talks about warez groups, but doesn't necessarily lists them off. Maybe add a different section to warez or possibly merge this list into a different article? I really don't see a purpose of this besides flaunting. :: Colin Keigher 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was last nominated for deletion 6 months ago (Sept 2005), a discussion that ended as "keep" with a strong recommendation for cleanup. Unless you can present evidence that the cleanup has failed to occur and that it is unlikely ever to occur, I suspect that the nomination might fail as premature. Personally, I see very little value in these kinds of "list of ..." articles, but they tend to be very difficult to kill in deletion discussions. Rossami (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

withdrawing an AFD

Is there a policy or guideline or practice regarding a nominator withdrawing an AFD or even self-closing the AFD subsequent to withdrawal? I've seen it done, and I think it makes sense in some cases, but I haven't noticed anything written about this. Шизомби 16:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Once a good-faith nomination has been made, it can not be withdrawn. Just as you don't own an article you start, you can't own a deletion discussion. Others may agree with your logic and deserve the chance to have their say. Just because you've changed your mind doesn't mean that they have yet changed theirs.

If you do change your mind, the preferred practice is to strike through the nomination (using <s> ~~nomination text~~ </s>) and explain your revised opinion. The community tends to give that revised opinion great weight during the decision-making process.

I'll also mention that there are some cases where nominations can be speedy-closed. However, that decision should be left to an impartial party. The nominator should not attempt to do so. See WP:GAFD and the related pages about the deletion process for more. Rossami (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense, though as I said I had seen it done before - maybe the policy should explicitly state that it shouldn't be? With the speedy closing, that would refer only to admins speedy closing and not regular editors, presumably? Шизомби 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Who removes red links

After an article is deleted, who is responsible for deleting the old links to it? --JeffW 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no automatic process for it. A person nominating an article for deletion should check the "What links here" and, if they're really conscientious, remove the links if the article's deleted, but many people don't think about it. As a general rule, there are a huge number of red links anyway, to articles that never existed, and in many cases are unlikely to ever exist. Fan1967 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn you JeffW, my secret shame is revealed! The deletion prompt has this to say:

Important Note: Links to this page or image will not be changed. If you have not already done so, please check "What links here" before deleting. If you are deleting an image, also check the file links; it is your responsibility to do image deletions cleanly and not leave broken links and red boxes in articles.

The emphasis is original. I take this to mean that if the person who deletes an article doesn't remove the red links, they are only doing half the job. I personally do not remove links to user pages, talk pages, or wip subpages, but I don't know what tribal knowledge says about that.

brenneman ^{L} 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, is there a simple way of resolving links on a page move? I was involved in one a few days back, then realized there were five dozen links to the old (wrong) title. Since I hate double-redirects, it took a while to edit all those articles to fix the link. Fan1967 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Once an article is saved from deletion, a tag like such is kept on the page:

This project page was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I have seen some people keep the tag at the top of the page forever and other people remove them into discussion (and the tag eventually disappears into archives). So which is the right way to go? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally say keep it on there forever, unless there are reasons for doing otherwise. That way if someone considers sending it to AfD in the future, they can have that easy link that will give the arguments for keeping/deleting the page, and will help that user decide whether they want to send it to AfD or reconsider. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First, are you saying that you've seem this template on the top of the article page? If so, that was a mistake. This template should only be used on Talk pages. But to answer the core of your question, I think that it can go into the archives eventually in most cases but I don't argue if someone pulls it back out. It can be useful in some situations but if the last deletion discussion was several years ago, its relevance is dubious at best. Use your best judgment. Rossami (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fasism

Fasism is a redirect to Fascism. I noticed this long after I mistyped, previewed and saved it. I wouldn't have saved it if it had been a redlink, which made me think whether it would not be better to kill the redirect. Redirects are not intended to catch spelling errors, right? Can I propose deletion? Piet 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are deleted at a separate page WP:RfD. However, common or plausible mispellings are acceptable for redirects, so I would let the redirect stay. JoshuaZ 13:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Piet 14:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Patryk Dominik Sztyber

Could somebody take care about Patryk Dominik Sztyber article? Blnguyen tagged it as afd 15 days ago and after summarize end score is: Keep 3, Weak Keep 1, Delete 1. Score of debate is clear, so I think there is no need to wait longer. Visor 21:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the clock has not yet started on this one. The nominator appears to have followed steps one and two but overlooked step 3 - listing the discussion page on the master AFD list. Only after it's had 5 days of full visibility will the discussion be generally closed. Thanks for pointing it out. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What Rossami said, but also, the "score" is utterly irrelevant. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Darren Jackson

~~Redirects to Colin Calderwood for some bizarre reason.~~ Never mind. Moved to Speedy Deletions --Badmotorfinger 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How long before verdict carried out + who?

How long should you wait for people to cast a vote and who should do what is decided? It's my first time and I'm confused --Tombom23 19:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Oh, and it's not a vote. Johnleemk | Talk 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guideline to reduce WP:BITE problems

There has been a lot of discussion about the problem of immediately AfDing new user's articles and the unpleasantness that can result. Therefore, I suggest a guideline that articles should not nominated for AfD unless they are at least three days old, and if one notes a recently created article that is problematic for notability concerns, a note should be put on the creator's talk page(possibly a new template) politely directing them to WP:N and asking them to provide an assertion of notability. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how this should work, but I agree with you in spirit at least. Obviously, speedies should still be speedy, and some stuff (like blatant spam / ads) shouldn't have a time window. But if something is controversial enough to make it to AfD in the first place, and the problem is findamentally one of WP:V or WP:N, then it seems to me that there's no harm in giving the article a few days to get itself together. Another possibility to what you suggest is another kind of prod, say, called "new-prod" or something: it's officially sort of like a strong {{verify}}, but an additional comment would say that if the problems are not fixed by "date", then the article will go AfD. (I say this because in my experience a tag on the article can generate a lot more action than a note on a talk page.) --Deville (Talk) 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. There's some stuff in this encyclopedia that shouldn't be here, and the sooner it's gone, the better. I'd prefer to see a page moved to 'quarantine' if that's technically possible - we could compulsorily move pages to the author's userspace or something like that, instead of deleting, if we're worried about offending newbies. - Richardcavell 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, though I think the specifics need to be fleshed out a bit. I agree with Deville's comments and suggest that we discuss the specifics of a new template. In addition, I think some mention should be made of not immediately nominating articles newbies identify as stubs without proper justification (as occured to Fire protection, a stub I created as when I was a newbie here). The purpose of identifying articles as stubs is to promote expansion. Nominating articles created as stubs by newbies does not assume good faith and discourages such expansion. -- backburner001 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll of the Day

I think to solve the disputes about Articles for deletion on Wikipedia, we should have an daily poll of the daywhere users vote on whether specific article(s) should be delted or not. You would have to enter your username and password and then cast your ballot. You can only vote once.1028 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD IS NOT A VOTE.

But thank you for your suggestion anyway. — sjorford (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. AFD is a consensus and not an absolute vote. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Shahr Banu VS Shahrbanu binte Yazdegerd III

There are two articles written on Bibi Shahrbanu. One is titled Shahr Banu and the other is titled Shahrbanu binte Yazdgerd III. So if there any way you can delete the article Shahr Banu because the other article has more information about her in a neutral style. And if you can, can you also provide me with step on how I can merge or delete articles. Thank You Salman

I think what you really want to do is merge and redirect. To merge the two articles, I recommend opening two browser windows and copy-pasting the material you want from one article into the other article. You should pick the article with the best name to be the destination, not necessarily the article that is currently most complete. When you are done, redirect the other article to the main article. You make something a redirect by replacing the article contents with #redirect foo. Redirects serve two purposes in this case and are far better than deletion. 1) A redirect points users who had been editing the other article to the new, merged article so you can all work together to improve it further. 2) Redirects preserve the article's attribution history. This is a requirement under GFDL. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can the nominator of an AFD article suspend the nomination in lue of a presented alternative(s), or does an article placed on the AFD list have to reach a consensus first? TomStar81 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Once a good faith discussion has been started, it should be allowed to run its course. You may have been convinced to change your mind but others may not have. We've learned the hard way that closing a discussion early just creates dissent and the appearance of impropriety. The discussion will close in few days regardless.

What you can do is to strike through your nomination (using <s>~~foo~~</s>) and revise your opinion in the discussion. Subsequent participants tend to give it significant weight when the nominator changes his/her mind. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There does exist a speedy keep guideline, if the nominator withdraws the request and there are no delete votes so far, the nomination can be closed early. This is not official policy, and it is not a fully integrated part of the deletion process, but I don't think many will complain if people make decisions based upon it. Usually such closes happen because the nominator realiszes that the nomination was based on a misunderstanding of deletion policy (e.g. didn't realize that all villages, no matter how small or remote, are always unanimously kept) or something like that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Supposing that a motion has been made to keep the page for a certain amount of time, and that proposal has been seconded by members of the keep side of the debate with blessings from the AFD nominator. Could we then keep the page in accordance with the agreement reached on the AFD page, or would this be a majority rule situation? TomStar81 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Majority rule has no relevance because we are not voting. Good deletion discussions result in consensus decisions which are often very nuanced and have which have been crafted to the specific situation and facts at hand. But that decision has to weigh the opinions and evidence offered by all the participants. Mere concurrence by the "members of the keep side" should not automatically decide anything.
You are asking about an exception process, not the normal course of a deletion discussion. Exceptions are, by definition, handled on a case-by-case basis. That's not something we should try to systematize.
Is there a specific case that is driving your questions? Rossami (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I am asking primarily in regard to this request; however, this is also a "for future reference" kind of discussion so that I can get a better idea of how pages here can be spared. In the specific case, I would like more time to do research for the page to see if I can expand the individual entry’s, but that would take time that I do not have right now, as I am currently studying rather intensly for finals, and the time alloted by an AFD tag for R&D work on the page would be insufficient unless the agreement that User:Lakhim and myself reached, in which case I would have a month to buckle down and really dig into it. Alternatively, he has also suggest a merge option for the page to combine it with the other building pages. This AFD has been hard on both sides because we lack a wiki-recognized concept of a "game manual"; for games like Kingdom Hearts and Rainbow Six this is not as big a deal since the primary units are characters, but in rts and tbs games the entire game play revolves around units and strucutures which, when listed here in an effort to be encyclopedic, can give the impression of a game manual without really intending to. TomStar81 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer

I have seen AfD's being stopped because the nominator was an abusive puppet. Is this policy? Out of curiosity, is any AfD started by an abusive sockpuppet invalid? Nomen Nescio 07:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think administrators have discretion to ignore sockpuppet contributions or close AfDs if they were made in bad faith (which one from an abusive puppet would probably be). Sometimes I think the obsession with sockpuppetry gets out of hand (especially since it isn't a vote), as though the important point was to root out sockpuppetry and not establish the substantive merit of the article itself. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Influx of Icons

Is anyone else disturbed by the recent influx of the little checkmark icons on the AfD page? I think there are several problems with this:

It adds unecessarily to the load time of the page.
It makes AfD look more like a vote, which it is definately not. User's positions are already more than clear by bolding text.

Maybe we should add something to the project page which officially says these should not be used? Thoughts? --Hetar 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess they look nice but they're really pointless ornaments. And it is getting a bit tacky. Given the valid concerns above, I'd say we don't need them. It does make things seem more like a vote... --W.marsh 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming to this talk page to say exactly the same thing! Surely these icons would create a fair bit more load for the server and they make the load time of the page greater as well. We can't really add something to the project page saying that these icons should not be used without some sort of policy/guideline or some showing of consensus of the community that these icons shouldn't be used. DarthVad e r 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Are very many people using them? My arbitrary sample of a day's AFD revealed.... two. Perhaps it would be better to express your concerns directly on their talk pages. FreplySpang (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the May 13 log. I count at least 15 different editors using the icons, several of whom are involved in multiple AfD discussions today. --Metropolitan90 23:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

After they were removed, the AfD's looked awfully odd, with a whole lot of redlinked "template:Skeep" entries, so I recreated the main ones as just the old standard '''Keep'''. The SKeep template has been nominated for Speedy. I think it serves a purpose as a placeholder, anyway. Fan1967 00:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

15? Never mind. FreplySpang (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note the fact that once the image has been loaded once, it doesn't actually affect page loading time. Just thought I'd bring this to attention. Thanks. --Xyra e l ^T 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

What if I see an article which is all junk or seems like advertising or is otherwise not a worthwile page, should I list it here? I am talking about Mediasphere which seems non-notable and is a dictionary definition. Hdtopo 10:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You might try WP:PROD first, as afd is mostly for contested deletions, or ones where controversy is almost certain. You can nominate anything for afd though, as long as it's in good faith... it's just a good idea to try PROD first. --W.marsh 14:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

policy unclear. WHATS NEXT?

This page is not very clear as to what to do AFTER an Afd vote Has Passed. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

After the 5 days, someone can close it, usually interpreting consensus to determine what to do. If the decision is to delete, an admin needs to close it. This is covered in more depth at Wikipedia:Deletion policy --W.marsh 21:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is not supposed to discuss that part of the process. It's been deliberately trimmed down to the bare minimum of guidance. You probably want to read the Guide to deletion for the full overview. If you really want to get into the weeds about how admins close out the discussions, you can read the Deletion process. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam points of interest

I nominated this page, Vietnam points of interest, on 13 April. I must have done it wrong as the afd is still open and theres no link from the 13 April log page. I don't know how to resolve this - can someone help? Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 09:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot step three: adding it to the AfD log. I just added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 16. This should solve the problem. Johnleemk | Talk 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks ::Supergolden:: 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Marvin Reyes

I am quite disturbed by this entry because Mr. Reyes, though promising, appears too raw to be included as a luminary or a Wikipedia entry. Otherwise, we will end up including every aspiring writer and every faculty member from every university. A writer should be credited for his/her pioneering contributions to his country and his /her outstanding body of works. Mr. Reyes' career is just beginning. Maybe we should give him a few more years before he can be included here. - 7258 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Time to pare back the page again

The instructions on this page, while all good advice, have again grown out of control. When this page gets too large, users stop reading any of it. It's time to prune the page back again. I recommend that we merge almost all of this content back into the Guide to deletion and replace the content here with a very large instruction to "go read the Guide". Rossami (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make a request based purely in my personal convenience. When the basic instructions fit in less than one screen, it was terribly convenient to have them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion itself. After an AFD subpage is created and saved in Step 2, it has a link to WP:AFD at the top. Click on that, ctrl-end, click on "Edit this link", good to go for step 3. Quick and easy (for me anyway). So, while I completely agree that the instructions have become overgrown, I would love it if the basic instructions (or, I suppose, just that one link) could stay at the bottom of the page. FreplySpang (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see separate pages with detailed instructions and guidance for (a) Nominators; (b) General participants in the debate; (c) Authors and Major contributors; and (d) Closing administrators. Further one overview page for explaining the whole process as clearly as possible without going into all kinds of detail (and definitely much less detail than the Guide). As far as I am concerned, all four may be disjoint from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as long as it is easy to navigate to them from there. This may involve reshuffling existing material. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh good lord, yes. Have "How to list pages for deletion" be the only thing still remaining here. Everything else should go in the guide, with perhaps a wikilink for some common topics such as "How to list multiple related pages for deletion". That keeps the AfD page as clean as possible. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bernardbigras.jpg

I have uploaded and updated the new official photo of Bernard Bigras on May 16, 2006. Can you or someone delete the old photo of Bernard Bigras on October 5, 2004. It was uploaded by Earl Andrew Let someone or let me know when to be deleted. Okay Thanks! Sincerely Steam5 (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... Why? We don't generally delete from history without a reason. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jules Siegel

Is there any reason a vanity page such as Jules_Siegel should not be nominated for deletion? ThanksRsm99833 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It meets the criteria for notability, doesn't it?Michael Dorosh 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I've never heard of him, and the article itself was created by the user. Rsm99833 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Size limit

While discussing Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, we've ended up with a discussion that's blown out of proportion because an enthusiastic defender of the page is posting reams in reply. I support his right to reply, but it's making a mess of the formatting! What should we do? Should there be a limit on the length of replies? I'm pretty sure that people are skipping over this because it's not easy to read, meaning that we're left with only one vote (mine) and not even a nomination any more. - Richardcavell 06:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bard Eithum

i recently made this article not realising that there is allready one for this person with a slightly different title it should therefore either be worked into the actual article or simply deleted, myself not having the power to delete, i do not mind either way. Unregistered text offender 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you realize that you have accidently made a duplicate article, it's a good idea to redirect it to the correct one. Since you accidently created an article at that title, you can bet that someone else will be searching for that term sooner or later and would appreciate being redirected to the right place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Afd helper is evil and must die. I suggest sheep.

Have a look at the marching horror that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism. This is evil and must be destroyed. I've left a few random notes, but they breed like rabbits. Please, for the love of Bob, somebody do something! - brenneman ^{L} 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion is already dead. Has been for a long time. You're looking at the wandering zombie. Kim Bruning 13:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's worse, those images are at Commons and cannot be deleted from Wikipedia. <groan>. At any rate, you can shoot down anything which resembles {{votedelete}} as recreations. They are WP:CSD G4 candidates following this TFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just glancing down today's afd page there don't seem to be a lot of images being used by voters. Am I missing something? The trend emerged about a week ago and quickly died, I thought. --W.marsh 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure it stays dead. And my problem is a deeper one: Note that the image users here all made naked votes. I think it's a monobook horror like User talk:Jnothman/afd helper. In the longer run, the "vote on them all" mindset is the real disease, the images are just the rash on top. - brenneman ^{L} 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the images? Stifle (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They make flashy nonthoughtful "votes" stand out more than reasoned, longwinded discourse that explains the rationale behind the thinking. A good closing admin won't be accidentally influenced, we hope, but still, the subliminality is something we can't easily measure or shield against. IMHO of course. Bad idea. Makes WP all friendly and myspacey. Blech. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (whose signature may be too colorful/friendly/fluffy for some I guess)

Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions, wow, amazing. This page was originally called "Voting is banned" I do believe :-P Does it even still mention polls? Welcome to the wikinomic <sigh> Kim Bruning 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank J. Petrilli

the article for Frank J. Petrilli has been nominated for 2 weeks, and is currently 4-0 delete, with even the creator of the page saying he made a mistake. When will it be deleted? --Awiseman 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You apparently never listed this on the daily afd log, per the instructions, so no closers could ever see this afd to close it. Since it was never listed on the daily afd page, it never actually went through the afd process. My advise is to start again and list it properly to comply with process, and it will be closed in 5 days. --W.marsh 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I did step 3 so it appears under today's log. Awiseman, I suggest you take a closer look at the instructions the next time you wish to list something on AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

if the article was created in error, it should be a valid speedy. If local consensus at the page is to delete, go for it. Kim Bruning 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I removed the link, I'll close the AfD with a speedy, if it hasn't been done so already. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not that good at all these template things and such. --Awiseman 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Love and Marriage (comic strip)

Someone—remember, it was not my idea—wanted it deleted. I think it should be kept because anyone must know about it. I put it in its own page from the article Love and Marriage because it is irrelevant to that article. --Gh87 00:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

GNAA clause?

LUEshi (sixth nomination) was closed with a speedy keep due to a "bad-faith nomination" and enforcement of the "GNAA clause." I seriously don't understand this. The AFD was obviously hit with a flood of anonymous users (I checked on a message board and found an alert topic about this nomination), but the closing admin chose to pick on the nominator of the article as the justification for closing the AFD instead of the obvious sockpuppetry behind it. Hbdragon88 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

Hi, I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. It deals with the current issues relating to "deletionism" on Wikipedia. Thank you. IZAK 09:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.

Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:

1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).

2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.

As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.

This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.

Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.

Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.

Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the congregation, while you might think it's important, if there is no other evidence for it and not many Google hits, it's tough to not delete it. Know what I mean? Otherwise, people might not delete things that really should be deleted because somebody says it's notable. --Awiseman 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

the grassfairies

okay so there appeared to have been some conflict that went down since i logged on this morning. i was just wondering what went down? yeah i wrote this article for a band i thought was good and diserved some recognition,but i didn't want to start any trouble or think they would cause any problems, so if someone would just tell me what was said at least paraphrasing then that would be great.

Nomination

I nominate Professional wrestling in Australia for deletion as it is constantly attacked by non-wrestling fans who edit nonsense on a daily basis.

Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, please review

Slimvirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just speedy kept a large number of articles nominated by PZFUN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Both parties were acting in good faith, so I have no qualms so far.

However, either or both of these editors may have worked in *bulk action*, it seems. The individual merits of each nomination may not have been checked as thoroughly as one might like.

It might be good if someone reviewed each of those nominations and keeps, to separate the chaff from the corn.

Kim Bruning 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, certain editors appear to have started a crusade against PZFUN. Please review all opinions on those articles carefully before making a descision either way. Kim Bruning 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Send to Adhoc

How about making an option for AfD result be: Send to Adhoc at Adhocipedia!!! It's a scratchpad wikia for anything Wikipedia says is not notable enough. CMIIW 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Adhoc is run by the wikimedia foundation, which would make it a litle presumptious for us to consistently send our admins over to enter things into adhocipedia. However, we can certainly suggest it to content originators who enter NN content, and I for one will try to remember it for next time. --Bachrach44 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikia is linked to both Jimbo and Angela. Johnleemk | Talk 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Change of wording

Is it appropriate if I ask User:Lightdarkness (the AfD bot owner) to change "but if you are confident it is not a controversial issue, consider using {{subst:prod|reason for deletion}} instead" to "but if you are confident it is not a controversial issue, use {{subst:prod|reason for deletion}} instead"? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

New bot problems

Can someone please fix Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_28 so that it isn't just a string of error messages followed by one AFD nomination? Looks like the changes to the bot aren't going as smoothly as hoped...

Done. Typical bot. Uses up human time at both ends, in the very act of trying to save it! -Splash^talk 01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there an WP:AFC equivalent for deletion?

I've been editing without registering for a few years now, and I used to be able to nominate articles for deletion. I now see that's impossible (yet another privilege lost by unregistered users since the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy). IMHO, Andre Ruette fails to meet WP:BIO, something I attempted to rectify via WP:PROD when I was editing as 66.167.137.56 (talk · contribs). 149.9.0.25 (talk · contribs) disagreed with my assessment, leaving me no choice but to try some other process. Rather than giving up I am hoping to find an alternate process if one is available. Failing that, perhaps I can convince someone to do the AfD nomination, by pointing out that a google search for Andre Ruette yields no evidence of notability. Thanks in advance. 66.167.139.151 09:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

I'd strongly suggest you create an account instead. Users who are involved this deeply in the project usually benefit from having a consistent identity. Also, last I checked votes by anonymous IPs don't count. Also, using a registered account hides your IP, which protects your privacy (I wouldn't want some bitter article writer hunting me down :-). Deco 09:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes from anonymous IPs do "count" if they provide a good reason, from WP:GD: "...verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process.". But yes, getting an account makes the process of editing Wikipedia much easier. Apart from the ability to create pages you get a move-button, the ability to watchlist, and people tend to treat you with much more respect (you should be treated with respect anyway of course). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a voteCrazynas 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like there's no process available to me short of creating an account. Thanks to the three of you for your comments. 66.167.137.91 (f.k.a. 66.167.139.151 (talk · contribs)) 07:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

As Crazynas says, it isn't a vote and good ideas will be picked up. I'd leave anon IPs to the vandals - it makes them much easier to spot. And the watchlist is invaluable. Stephen B Streater 09:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of axed page

If a page with information arranged either in an article form or in a list form is deleted can it be recreated for the purpose of redirecting the page? For example, if a page title "ships operated by White Star lines" is deleted could it be recreated as a redirect to the article "White Star lines"? TomStar81 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I would think hard about it. If it obviously could have been converted to a redirect, the proposer should have just done that instead of sending it for AfD. Sometimes voters will suggest "redirect", which provides support for such an action. Most of the time, if the topic isn't suitable for Wikipedia, people probably aren't going to search for it either. Deco 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For unclear reasons many nominators, as well as "voters", don't seem to consider the possibility of a redirect, and if the arguments in the deletion debate, unlike e.g. like "POV title", clearly don't reflect on a redirect page, I don't see a problem. Recreating to make a redirect page may make sense if there are a lot of incoming links that are now redlinked, which sometimes happens (see #Who removes red links above). Otherwise, it only makes sense if it also would have been a good idea if that page had never existed, which requires that the title is a plausible search term. Creating a new redirect page with a title like The (Prince of Wales's) North Staffordshire Regiment would be pointless; no-one would ever come up with that search time. I'm not too sure about "ships operated by White Star lines" either, but I guess that was just by way of example. In the end: just use your common sense. There ~~is no spoon~~ are no rules. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)