Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

New proposal to change certain AfD's to merge discussions

Brief announcement: see here for a proposal to apply WP:BEFORE in speedy closing certain merge-related debates. Skomorokh 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Date/Status bot back

I've got AfDBot running again on User:ST47/AfD and User:ST47/AfDC, if anyone was using that information, it should now be current until further notice. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting issue. The bot shows that July 21 isn't complete, and a look at July 21, specifically Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_21#Logitech_Attack_3, shows that to be true. (At least, as I type this). So I added July 21 back into the old discussions section, ran mathbot to update, and mathbot says zero open. Darned if I can figure out why. Any clue anyone???--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted that one, so now the 21st is clean. Can't say why mathbot didn't pick it up, but it looks like further inconsistency is based on User:ST47/AfD picking up the commented out AfDs on the log page. My guess is there's eight of those. So I'm thinking both bots could use an update to avoid issues like this in the future, 'cuz they were both wrong. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thought on the commenting out, but there's only 4. :)

Sounds like it would be a good idea if people gave each day's list a once over before moving it to the archives.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, ST47. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD template banners

I've removed the Wikiproject: Pop culture banner from the shell above. While I think that discussion about the ARS/Deletion banners are important, I'm not inclined to think that the IPC project has much cause to place a banner here. their articles come here for deletion, but not much more than any other project. Project pop culture is able to think however they want about 'working in the trenches', but I think that the template messages at the top of this page should be kept to the bare minimum. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was added in this edit, so I suggest asking Benjiboi why. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just putting this post up here to let people know that at least one person objects to its replacement. That's for pointing that out to me, though. :) Protonk (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason the banner should be here, other than occasionally some articles come up for deletion? If the only reason is the sometimes-articles-get-deleted, would Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture be a good target for the banner? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to understand the reasoning for the banner.) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. Each delsort page is a subpage of the main one, so the discussion page is common to all. :( Protonk (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly my brain was off somewhere wandering around this morning. That slash in the title should have clued me in. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W-PuTTY-CD

Can someone take a look at this afd and possibly do some cleaning up? it's so full of spam that it's impossible to tell what's going on. --neon white talk 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad. I removed the headers, as they're not necessary. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation templates with icons

There are a couple of templates that have been around for a while but have been little used until now that incorporate icons with editors' recommendations. These are:

• {{keepvote}} or {{forvote}} - renders as Keep
• {{delvote}} - renders as Delete
• {{afd comment}} - renders as Comment

Similar templates are used as standard in deletion discussions on the Spanish Wikipedia. The ones here may need a bit of discussion and/or improvement to cover all cases and standardise on names for the templates. I'm not sure, for instance, that "delvote" and "keepvote" are appropriate names since deletion discussions are not a vote. Also, AFAIK there are no templates for the merge or rename options as yet. However, I do think we should take this on board. Vquex (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, you probably wanna' take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose for why we don't have those anymore. There was a DRV for them recently, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 17, which pretty well endorsed the deletion. So I'm pretty sure consensus is against having these for use at AfD. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I read that discussion as 'the community doesn't want them but you are free to drag them out of a userspace template if you really want to pretty up your !vote at AfD. Hopefully it doesn't become standard, but I think anyone is free to adorn their statement (caveat emptor, I can't speak for everyone). Protonk (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And they've now been speedy-deleted under criterion G4 per the repeated discussions on these templates. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK I was not aware of these previous discussions. Vquex (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have on record that they're gone here. They emphasize the wrong thinge entirely. AfD is not a vote on the enWP, though it is on some of the other WPs. But Im glad to know how you thought of using them from previous experience.. DGG (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bantalas, by Xesko

If I understand correctly, you are doubting the truthfulness of my article. You can check them in the links in reference or when I discovers how I can made an upload of a image, I can put an image of the magazine "The Bantalas" in the page. I have all the numbers. If this is not a trustworthy source, then I do not know what it will be. Xesko (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to The Bantalas - currently at AfD. I don't understand Portuguese - the language used in the external links, so I haven't check them. The main issue of this article however doesn't seem to be verifiability, but notability. Generally, when an article fails WP:N (wikipedia inclusion guideline), it doesn't matter whether that article can be verifiable or not.--PeaceNT (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong?

When I insert:

   {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}

It does not expand for some reason. Also, where do I use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:afd3|pg=ROFL}} generates {{:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROFL}}, so if it's a second nomination you need to put {{subst:afd3|pg=ROFL (2nd nomination)}} or whatever the AfD title is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest/bias in AfD closes?

Should admins who typically nominate or "vote" to delete certain kinds of articles be trusted to close the same sorts of AfD discussions? I do not wish to call anyone out just yet, but I have noticed a few AfDs that easily could have been closed as "no consensus" or "merge and redirect" closed as delete by a couple admins whom I frequently see nominating the exact same kinds of articles or who only argue to delete those kinds of articles. If that isn't a concern, then I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to close those kinds of disucssions as keep, no consensus, or merge and redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To address your second point, consensus has determined that non-admins aren't permitted to close debates where consensus isn't clear cut. Very clear-cut debates can be closed by anyone applying the snowball close, with debates that result in either keep or delete. Though the latter is more personal opinion than community consensus, as I think it's absolutely fine for a non-admin to close a debate that has run for 5 days with clear delete consensus ( {{db-afd}} can be used to mark the page for deletion). Seraphim♥Whipp 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason we have deletion review. Also, administrators are trusted members of the community for a reason. If you no longer trust certain admins, there are venues to deal with what you perceive as their breaches of trust. AniMate 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am considering it as there are at least a couple who are clearly going with their opinion when there is no clear consensus to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is generally recommended that non-administrators shouldn't close non clear-cut AfDs. This is however not a universally consensual rule - not written in black and white anywhere, either, so there must be exceptions. I suppose non-admins who have experience with the deletion policy and process can close no-consensus AfDs, and I have seen several non-admins who often do that quite well and help a lot in reducing the XfD backlog. :)

On the other hand, while I appreciate non-admins helping out with closing clear-cut AfDs as delete, I don't think it is helpful at all. The reason is that by deleting articles tagged with {{db-afd}}, an admin effectively endorses the AfD closure and accepts the responsibility for deletion. They still have to review the discussion to check if the tag is correct. It may save the admin one edit, but the time and effort spent on reading an AfD is still the same. (I do try to AGF as much as I can, but if I were to see something tagged with {{db-afd}}, I would review the deletion debate anyway to make sure. You never know when articles get vandalized ;)) --PeaceNT (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points there. I too, would never delete an article without checking the debate first. I was referring more to debates where there is a pure delete result, no objections, and the closer is in good community standing. But I see where you're coming from regarding time spent - something I hadn't considered :) - and I think an adjustment of my stance is definitely required :). Seraphim♥Whipp 08:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As another question, are admins required/expected to also look at the article under discussion, i.e. not just go by the comments? A few times I have noticed discussions that may have your usually rapid fire "per noms", but then right at the end of the discussion someone does a significant revision to the article thereby addressing all nominator concerns and yet few to no others return to or come to the discussion at this point and it gets closed as delete, which seems strange given the improvements. See for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy). Look at the last three comments in which an editor made a significnat revision and then someone who usually argues to delete or merge actually said to keep due to the rewrite (plus, it doesn't help that at least two of those who argued to delete later turned out to be sock accounts) and yet the article was closed as delete. Shouldn't the ending matter more than what happend at the start of the discussion? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, admins are expected to look at the articles they're deleting. Looking at Ernie, perhaps the rewrite wasn't as useful or illuminating as you remember. From what I've seen of East718, he appears to have good judgment. AniMate 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The character in question's notability has only increased since then as it appears in just about every season. So, if anything, I reckon the article could actually be improved further now. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It is advisable that admins look at the articles on AfDs, at least to put the deletion discussions in context. :) The cited AfD is indeed an unusual case, with noticeable improvement on the last day of the AfD - the day that article was deleted. Perhaps a relist could be warranted? Has anyone asked the closing admin about this AfD before? --PeaceNT (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone has or not. If relisted, it would only be fair that it be undeleted during a relist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

as for non admin closings in general, one reason to not prohibit them is to give prospective admins experience--and permit people to judge whether they do in fact understand. There have been RfAs turned down because of over-enthusiastic and ill-judged non-admin Afd closing. I admit it's somewhat paradoxical to permit people to do this so they can show if they make mistakes....

But as for admins who consistently close wrong, I think peer pressure is the first step, followed if necessary by RfCs, etc. Deletion Review can deal with clear isolated errors, but if people don't respond after criticisms of their closings there, there has to be a way of proceeding. DGG (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) is another example. Seven editors in good standing argued to keep and one argued to merge. The closer claims that the only sources are wikis, but a Google book search (see [1]) shows that this claim is simply not true. Thus saying that verifiability outweighs consensus is inaccurate, because the article can be verified by multiple published books and because it is exists in multiple published books, it is thus notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You've taken that particular one to DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 13, let's keep the discussion about it there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's part of a trend of ones that really could/should have been "no consensus", such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind, etc. If we're going to delete, then there really needs to be an overwhelming consensus to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Where "no consensus" means "sufficiently derailed by red herrings and brow-beating that an untrained eye would have difficulty seeing the consensus", of course. Sandstein's rationale for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind is basically a perfect example of how to do this properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a bad close as it was inconsistent what the community actually wanted. Some uninterested in trying to further work on a topic does not trump when sufficient numbers of others do believe it has value and can be improved in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Garden variety bad deletes can be reviewed at DrV or, depending on the circumstances, by recreating the article in different form. Moreover, every administrator potentially has different judgment, experience, and standards - so just as in a courtroom where there are "tough on crime" judges and "soft on crime" judges, each administrator here may be disposed to certain patters of decision-making, which is completely normal and only human. Sometimes a particular closing administrator may, on the margins, be more likely to delete a particular kind of article. There is a certain amount of chance and luck in deletion outcomes, and as long as the decisions are fair and competent that's acceptable because the overall process is an effective one and we have DrV as a backstop. Where does an administrator cross the line? I would guess in three ways - (1) they are simply not making capable decisions; (2) their bias becomes so evident that it erodes confidence in the fairness of the decisions; or (3) their decision-making appears to dovetail with a content agenda, as evidenced by their mainspace editing, talk page comments, AfD votes, etc. I didn't see any obvious pattern or egregious cases from any of the AfDs mentioned here so it may be a tempest in a pokemon pot, but I can imagine that if someone makes a lot of bad closes in a particular subject area, the appearance of a conflict erodes confidence in the results and they should probably recuse themselves from using administrative tools in that area, AfDs included. Wikidemo (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators would be more likely to make fair decisions if they stuck to their proper role, which is judging consensus, not making it. Their role with respect to deciding policy at AfD is properly limited to rejecting arguments that are clearly based on preference rather than policy. If there are conflicting policy-based arguments, then no administrator should have the right to decide which one is to dominate--they must go by what the consensus of people present think, and if there is no consensus, they do not get to have the casting vote. Perhaps we need a rule that no admin may ever close a debate on a subject in which he has a personal interest as judged by editing, or based on policy where he has taken a significant position on contested interpretations. DGG (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with DRVs is that at least in my case some (yes, that seems to be a list of only ones I started kept by another user...) make it a point to follow them and reflexively comment in opposition to them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• We've had a rash of deletion discussions where it appears that the closing administrator asserting her or himself. I don't know why that is. Those decisions were rightly taken to DRV (I'm thinking of the Fut Perf IfD for the two austrailians and the Sonic Shower article). I don't think they should be overturned, but they were right to go to DRV. I don't see how this turns into some broader problem of improper interpretation of consensus. Sometimes judging consensus is REALLY difficult. I don't envy the admins closing those 9/11 POV fork deletion discussions or the rough BLP deletion discussions. Nor do I envy the closers of truly close debates. But I think we are expanding the notion of which debates are truly close to mean debates where an editor disagrees with the close. That is BOUND to happen. With a broad enough set of preferences, you can find an editor to disagree with any close. Where the closes fall along ideological lines (Say, between editors who feel we should include daughter fictional elements and editors who feel we should not), there are a large number of potential editors who feel the close would be wrong. This is regardless of the actual strength of the close. Moving from there to some analysis of an editor's editing history to determine conflicts of interest is both unnecessary and absurd. It is unnecessary because we should demand that admins recuse themselves and take action (at the varying levels described above) when it appears that they don't. IT is absurd because it takes our most precious resource--editors--and pisses that away so we can save our most plentiful commodity--marginal articles--from being diminished. We are here to make an encyclopedia. If you don't like a policy, act to change it. If you think someone is not helping to build the encylopedia, work it out with them. We can't create new regimes of process and oversight in order to safeguard a few AfDs. And in this case we aren't even clear that any harm has come--that any closes made were in error. Absent that, what is the motivation for this at all. Also, WP:AGF Protonk (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

I propose we rename "Articles for deletion" as "Articles for discussion." My reasoning is twofold. First, in AfDs, people do not actually only argue whether or not to keep or delete, they also argue to merge, redirect, transwiki, etc. A good number of AfDs become not really whether or not we should just delete the articles in question, but what we should do with it altogether. Second, emphasising discussion in the title will further diminish the appearance and perception that it is a vote and seems a natural evolution from "Votes for deletion" to "Articles for deletion" to "Articles for discussion." And doing so also detracts from a polarizing approach to AfDs (inclusionism versus deletionism) by saying we are discussing what best to do with the article's content, not simply setting up a for or against deletion debate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there is something to your suggestion, but on balance I think the current name is better. There is a regular process for proposing merges which does not involve deletion discussions and it would not be a good idea to make AfDs into the main forum for discussing merges as well (even if the standard separate proposed merge process is retained, renaming AfD as "Articles for discussion" would create more confusion). AfD discussions are too fast and often involve a somewhat random collection of participants. Merge proposals often require longer and more in-depth discussions that assume more substantial familiarity with the articles in question (also, things like RfCs etc are sometimes used for merge proposals). There are too many AfD discussions already and it would not be beneficial to clog the AfD process further by increasing the number of articles discussed there. Keeping the two processes (proposed deletions and proposed merges) separate is a good idea. It is true that the outcome of some AfD is a merge or a redirect but in general I think we should discourage people from bringing merge proposals to the AfDs. I believe that AfD nominations should be used only for proposed deletions even if a merge is an occasional outcome. Regarding polarization, I do not think the current name is too polarizing. In fact, most people probably just remember the acronym anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That AfDs do not always end in deletion does not mean that this is not the primary purpose of AfD. Furthermore, we already have a perfectly adequate discussion page for each article with which to propose anything whatsoever related to it, and this system has worked very nicely for years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of editors don't try the talk pages first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not a requirement of the deletion process. If you think it should be, then that's a separate proposal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely propose that as well as rushing to deletion without attempting a merge discussion or even redirect discussion first (barring of course there is some copy vio, hoax, or libel concern) seems discourteous to the editors working on the article. Editors should at least talk to the main article writers and ask, "Hey, I am not seeing any other sources, do you know of any you haven't yet added?" or something as deletion is a last resort. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about what ideally happens, editors should be adding sources before they are asked. :) Personally, I'm not opposed to combining the deletion and merge processes (common practice is starting to do that already), but I don't think the rename is a good idea. "Discussion" may lull new-ish editors into thinking that discussion is all that will happen, and that deletion isn't a possible outcome. I'd rather encourage them to come on over and stick up for their article, in the hopes that potentially good articles won't accidentally be deleted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "Articles for deletion or merging"? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I"m with Chris on this. His points about the significant differences between merge discussions and deletion debates are important ones, best served by the current process. That you think that they aren't being used as often as you think they should be is a thoroughly different issue. I see merge discussion work fine quite often, and I see AfD work great 95%+ of the time, the rest has DRV. I see nothing borken to fix here. ThuranX (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that perhaps along with the whole notability stuff, AfD is perhaps our next most flawed aspect of Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding aren't you? There are millions of things on wikipedia more broken then AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that many AfDs stop a lot of work fixing those other things by instead of working to add citations to articles, we wind up going back and forth in AfDs that wind up being even longer than the articles deleted. Instead of now referenced articles, we get redlinked articles but even more disk space taken up by the deletion discussions. So, instead of contributing to catalogging human knowledge on the various deleted topics (and I'm only referring to ones where a sizable number of editors think it should be kept, not overwhelmingly decisive snowball or speedy delete scenarios) we conrtibute to catalogging human knowledge of wikipedians debating each other. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Going about an AfD

Hi. There should be a fourth step listed in the templated AfD -- alerting the editor(s). Although it's not policy and merely a show of civility, inclusion of the proper wording in a template would be great. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the procedure for nominating an article. Protonk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's there is a very unemphatic form: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to" . I think its so outrageously discourteous to discuss someone's contributions here without telling them about it that I would revise this to "For courtesy, it is required that you .... " Anything else strikes be as giving a license to BITE, or to attempts to evade opposition. Reliance upon people checking their watchlist do not help occasional contributors, where many of these problematic articles arise. DGG (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Only caveat is that I'd hate to see a properly formatted AFD, with a certain consensus to Delete, be overturned or Speedy Closed for lack of that notice. Now, I'd like to think lack of notice is a factor in overturning an improper afd, as the author's (or authors') assistance in cleanup might have made the difference - but it shouldn't be made the only factor, and requiring it would do precisely that. I agree wholeheartedly, though - we should be notifying authors wherever possible; maybe a simple-to-use tool to show the editors with the most contributions to an article would give guidance on who to notify. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Occasional contributors won't be helped by a Talk page notification either. If they're not coming back to Wikipedia often enough to notice the tag in time to participate in the discussion, they're also not going to find the Talk page notice until the discussion's over. The question here is balancing WP:BITE applied to users who are here regularly but who are too new to make effective use of the watchlist yet vs. the downsides of instruction creep and reinforcing false senses of WP:OWN. Rossami (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's create more burocracy... Perhaps we should extend the discussions for a month, so as not to bite those occasional editors who may well not be here during the five days of the discussion? Seriously, I don't mind anyone (or a bot) putting a note on editor's pages, but I will not be doing this. Contrary to a CSD and a ProD, an AfD is an open discussion with many eyes on it (even if there are only a few contributors), where the opinion of the creator or other editors of the article is welcome but not necessary. Remember WP:OWN, and remember the "merciless editing" contributions will suffer. Deletion is not about an editor, but about an article, a subject. This is not about biting (many AfD are about older articles and/or experienced editors anyway), nor about avoiding opposition (although the notification of editors of the article could of course be interpreted as a forced seeking of people wanting to keep an article, i.e. canvassing by only notifying authors which you suspect will want to keep the article). In short, I oppose any obligation to notify anyone, whethere editors or projects, of any AfD.Fram (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you're that interested in an article you should have it on your watchlist (and so you can see the AfD notice being added). Hut 8.5 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support requiring notification of article creators, main contributors, and relevant projects of AfDs. We should get a real consensus that includes those familiar with the topic as the typical half dozen or less editors in any given AfD many times are totally unfamiliar or uninterested in the subject and discussing only over a mere five days cannot possibly legitimately reflect consensus, especially if it is for an article worked on for years with scores of contributors. It can for cases of clear hoaxes or libel, but for articles that are on the fence that is another matter and it is courtesy or at least the friendly and colleagial thing to notify editors who may not keep a constant eye on their watch list but cannot ignore that "you have new message" template thing that shows up regardless of what page you happen to be editing. The more contributors to an AfD, the more accurate of a consensus and discussion we have with more diverse ideas. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn AfDs

If an AfD is withdrawn, and there are no significant recommendations to Delete, any uninvolved admin (or non-admin editor) can close the debate as Nomination Withdrawn, which is as it should be - no one involved in the discussion should be closing it anyway, however it would end up. But, occasionally, I see a debate where the nominator withdraws their nom, and then three or four editors comment before it's closed 12 hours later. Would it be of benefit to use a template of some sort to highlight the fact that the debate is ready to be closed? Maybe something simple like {{withdrawnafd}} that would populate a category such as Category:AfD Debates withdrawn by nominator. This might be instruction creep, but it might also make it easier to withdraw a nomination if the article's problems are fixed. ...Or I might be overthinking it. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean. Withdrawn noms where no significant votes to delete exist is already a listed example of non admin closures. Sometimes nominators change their mind but the community agrees with the original nomination and a removal (with significant delete votes) would be inappropriate. What are you suggesting? To be clear, I don't mean to say there isn't room for improvement, I just don't know what exactly you want to improve. Forgive me if you are being clear and I'm just being dense. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of {{helpme}}, which is intended specifically to get the attention of other editors for some purpose. {{unblock}} and {{editprotected}} are similar. If there's a debate with a withdrawn nom, in theory, the template would add it to a "Hey, these AfDs can be closed now, kthx" category, and the next editor that notices could nip over and close it. You're right, though - non-admins can close the debate, provided that they have not yet participated in that debate, so it probably is a non-issue. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OH! Now I get it. That's a good idea. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the template and category, for review. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think you're overthinking it. Instruction creep is already a very serious problem for us, especially in everything deletion-related. I have no objection if you use the templates yourself but I wouldn't want to clog up our already-overlong pages with more instructions for what seems to be a fairly minor issue. Rossami (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Seeing new arguments pop up after the nominator has withdrawn is not especially problematic. Either they are agreeing with the nominator's new reasoning in which case it is a minor waste of effort on their part (as the discussion will be closed with or without their input), or they agree with the original statement in which case it is evident that the discussion should continue. Shereth 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Withdrawn AfDs, please note that an AfD still open has been withdrawn, which has been seconded by another who original argued to dleete and for which I have fulfilled my side of that agreement. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD reform

AFD desperately needs to be reformed. I am literally getting swamped with people posting google searches or references that contain only the name of the article as proof of notability. Further, the same people are doing it across all the AFD's, and it is completely disruptive to the process, as that discussion time and effort could be put toward finding actual references, and not shoving google searches in our faces and implying "your too lazy to find the references that may/may not be out there. Further, people are also posting essays as to why articles that fail our policies should be kept, and show disdain for actual Wikipedia policies, preferring their own opinions to our rules. I believe we need to have a rule about this, because AFD is becoming an opportunity for endless filibustering of discussion of actual Wikipedia policy, and is wasting vast amounts of time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Will a rule actually stop this behavior?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not likely, it'll just let us block people that do it. Which would be punishment, which isn't good. If it's disruptive, talk to the editors, and if necessary bring them to WP:ANI afterwards. Also, just an FYI, but I'm pretty sure most admins who close AfDs have a good enough sense of policy to know when arguments contradict them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if we could just say that it is not allowed, that way we can reprimand people who keep doing it, because I have talked to the people involved, and there has been zero movement by them to stop this behavior. Please, something must be done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Many AFDs have people saying keep due to google searches: with many matches that aren't even related to the subject at all. Deletion debates shouldn't be a matter of how many google (or any other search engine) links that are found. Yet many people disrupt the debates by doing this, over and over again. As for essays: I think some sort of guideline on this should be made. People post these too much in AFDs, and treat them like guidelines... but it's just opinions. Guidelines determine what is kept and deleted, not personal opinions. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous comments have it exactly upside-down. Responding to someone who posts a AfD and say " not notable because there are no sources" by showing that there are source is very much to the point. the people being disruptive in such cases are the ones bringing articles to afd without doing even the most cursory check of sources. I would be another mater if they nominated an article and said, "the sources available, 1/ 2/ 3/ do not prove notability because .....," with emphasis ofn the part following the "because." But instead, there are those who place AFDs denying that sources exist,without looking, and hope to carry out the deletion if nobody else looks either. Then , when sources are found, and they appear very much to the point, only then do they start finding reasons why they are not applicable even if they appear on the face that they are. What I would like is a rule saying that nobody may bring an item for deletion where the primary matter in question is sourcing without doing and commenting a search, and that afd's nominated otherwise by thrown out summarily by a clerk, without prejudice to coming back again properly. This would cut down the debates sufficiently. Alternatively of course, people repeatedly bringing AfDs that are snow closed or almost unanimously closed as keeps, should lose the privilege of bringing items to AfD--I wouldn't go so far as to block them, for they might be productive users otherwise. As for essays, essays are summaries of common arguments. There might be some things we agree not to post at all, such as the word "indiscriminate" If it has any meaning in a particular case, let it be said in other words. Similarly, the general policies of NOT#whatever should not be involved without an explanation of exactly why the article in question falls under them.

Personally, I have my own idea of a reform, based on my own practice. No person can contribute more than two times in a single AfD- If you cant convince people by saying what you have to say, and then answering the objections raised, you're unlikely to convince them at all. At last, I never try beyond a certain point. Either I have it right, and people will support the view, or else they won't--it's not something personal where i feel any need to have the last word. DGG (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. In my observation the real problem is that too many AfD nominations are made without any attempt to check if the sources exist first. If people did at least a few quick google searches (such as googlebooks, googlenews or googlescholar, which are good at fishing out reliable sources) before listing an article for an AfD to see if there are reliable sources covering a particular subject, a great many AfDs would be avoided and much time for discussion would be saved. In fact, I find it really surprizing that people do not do that as a matter of course. I have listed a few things for AfD myself and it always takes me longer to do an AfD listing than to do a few quick google searches. Nsk92 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes people should check things before they put it in AFD. However, a part of the blame still goes to people that disrupt AFDs with various actions (listing google hits and claiming that instantly gives it notability, using essays instead of policies as a keep reason) and so on. I agree with the limit DGG said: two times in an afd should be the limit. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of assigning blame, people whom I blame the most are those who create WP articles without listing any sources. Trout all of them, I say! (seriously!) People should really work on developing a basic and at least minimally sourced version of an article in their userspace first, before posting it to mainspace. However, regarding AfDs themselves, I don't really think the examples you give qualify as disruptions, exactly (or maybe they are just not specific enough for me to understand the context of what you mean). Referencing an essay may be viewed as a way of indicating that you agree with the logic and the arguments given in that essay. Often it works rather well and saves time and space. E.g. WP:ILIKEIT is such a useful essay. Regarding claiming that plain google search hits prove notability, I have not seen this argument used too often and, in my experience, this argument is usually made mostly by new and inexperienced users. Arguments made in good faith, even if they are very weak or clearly invalid, are not disruptive. Nsk92 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a growing problem. It's one thing to produce WP:GOOGLEHITS to show a bunch of appropriate sources. But when google only reveals blog posts, forums posts, and off-topic synonyms... it is perfectly reasonable to call someone on those google hits. And when they respond by saying "there's sources somewhere in there", that denigrates the hard work that editors often go through to actually read those sources and find that none of them are appropriate. If google really produces so many reliable sources, it shouldn't be hard to find TWO that verify some statements in the article. I think the simple answer is to include that as part of the AFD guidelines on this page: google hits are not enough to satisfy an article's referencing requirements. Not to say that we should ban people from posting google hits, but it should be seen as part of the discussion process rather than counting it as evidence of any value. If people were forced to stop treating it as evidence, we might actually find some sources to result in a keep of any merit. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is free to make their arguments on AfD. The community, and ultimately the closing administrator, can weigh the arguments' merit and discount arguments that seem inappropriate or against policy. I'd have to see some examples to know if I agree, but google results are often useful, as are admonitions to overeager nominators to use google first. Frankly, I see more trouble with people voting to delete based on misunderstanding what the article is about or misinterpreting policy - or on both sides for not actually reading the article or thinking much about the issue. But blocking people and calling them disruptive for making poor arguments at AfD sounds quite WP:BITEy. Where do we ever block people for repeated incompetence? Only in the most extreme cases. Better to educate them. Wikidemo (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. It would be unfair to smack newbies too hard for misunderstanding the policy. Anything else should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Most people have the good sense to ignore the WP:GOOGLEHITS argument anyway. Randomran (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is all getting way off topic, and the topic is, people are doing things to knowingly disrupt AFD. They are not newbies, they have been warned 100 times by a dozen different people not to post google searches for any reason, since you are only supposed to post actual reliable sources for people to examine. It is as lazy as people who don't research articles and topic before they try to delete them. This is not an occasion to say "everyone is at fault, following Wikipedia policy is the same as obstructing it". No, this is about getting a consensus that those who constantly filibuster the AFD conversations should be called out for this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you distinguish a filibuster from someone trying to have an AFD discussion in good faith? Randomran (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

After having been informed that arguing based on personal opinion or wikipedia essays and that google searches are not examples of notability, and then doing this anyway in dozens of AFD's, then this is filibustering, which means they are filling the AFD with the above arguments that don't help us determine notability, but instead function to confuse the issue to the point where the closer says "no consensus" regardless of the articles actual merits, which are never discussed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you point to a few specific examples of AfDs where such problems occurred? Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me offer a proposal. "Google searches do not establish notability. ... An editor who does not advance the AFD process with logic or evidence may only need a gentle reminder about our policies. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts to correct it, please consider a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD." Something to that effect. Very gentle, makes plenty of allowances for new or misguided editors, and would not come up in 99% of cases. But in the 1% of instances where someone is actually being disruptive, we'd have a specific issue to take up with an administrator or mediator. Randomran (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The issues of what does or does not establish notability belong in various notability guidelines, WP:N, WP:BIO, etc. I think that all of these guidelines already contain provisions requiring evidence of notability to be verifiable in the sense defined by WP:V. Google searches do in fact have some use. Specialized Google searches such as GoogleBooks, GoogleNews and GoogleScholar are very good tools for fishing out reliable sources and their use, for the purpose of locating such sources, should be encouraged, not discouraged. In fact, such searches cut both ways and low results there are often used to demonstrate the absence of notability (in fact, low plain google search results are often used for the same purpose). As I said, I only rarely see anyone try to argue in an AfD that an X number of hits in a plain google search proves notability; such arguments are typically made by newcomers and they are routinely discounted as a matter of course. In fact, if someone does make such an arguement, a quick and efficient way of responding to it is to point to the essay -:) WP:GHITS. Nsk92 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen people respond "that's only an essay", or "yeah, but the sources within the google search would prove notability". I can assume that they're making an honest mistake in good faith, but it would be more helpful if we could point to a tangible policy or guideline that would help correct the behavior. A pattern of serial mistakes becomes disruptive, whether or not those mistakes are being made in good faith, and whether the editor is a slow learner or just stubborn. Randomran (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread looks very much like the points raised are primarily directed at the editor(s) who use(s) said tactics. Given that in no situation does this seem to actually affect the outcome of the AfDs in question (save for them taking three times as long) and that the primary problem is wasted time in dealing with bogosity generated by said editor(s), I think it would probably be better to leave AfD as it is (because it's getting the right results) and concentrate on reforming or rebuking said editor(s). I certainly don't look at something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth and think "the AfD process if flawed" in the first instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. As frustrating as this is, it isn't any different from any other argument listed at WP:AADD. In most cases, the result isn't that different. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the usual response; "tell them what they are doing is wrong, and then if they don't listen, take them to Dispute Resolution, where you will be told that it is just an argument about notability, and you should sort it out yourself with them, and when they totally ignore you, oh well", totally ignoring the disruptive nature of posting empty arguments/google searches. And by the way, it is not ok to post any kind of search engine search as proof of notability, it's like someone calling you lazy and saying "look in here, your so lazy you never looked here", when they themselves haven't looked themselves or found anything specific that demosntrates notability. I wish established editors would actually be listened to, and not have my concerns and others concerns completely ignored as is the usual procedure. This is not about deletionism or inclusionism, this is about people disrupting the whole conversation that is supposed to take place at AFD to determine notability by posting things that have no relevance and establish nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But in that case disruption is the problem and quoting googlehits is just a vehicle for that. I don't want to create a host of things people are or aren't allowed to say when we should condemn disruption or contempt. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see both sides of the argument here. We don't want to get people in trouble for good faith mistakes. But people who constantly use AFDs to assert opinions no evidence or policy backing, or the backing of weak essays or irrelevant evidence... it begins to frustrate the process. Which wouldn't be a big deal, except that when it's taken to higher forms of WP:DR it's treated as a personal attack or a difference in interpretation. Really, we just to know that there's a way to stop nonconstructive participation in AFDs if someone is frequently shown our AFD policies only to ignore them. Randomran (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If it exists, please let me know, because the path people have already taken has lead to simply being told "this is a notability dispute, everybody is equally to blame, therefore we wash our hands of your dispute, sort it out yourselves". I would love to find a forum that actually takes the concerns/behavior seriously. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I'm hoping we can clarify that here, and offer a soft guideline of "what not to do in AFD" that is gentle on newbies, but enforceable on people who stubbornly ignore it after repeated explanations/warnings. Randomran (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you could get any consensus for what constitutes repeated bad arguments. Personally, I'm fine with listing or counting google hits - I think WP:GHITS is overstated and often misapplied. Similarly, WP:NOTINHERITED is very murky and does not mean what a lot of people think it means. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a useful pointer to people, but the fact that stuff exists or does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia is often a reality check or an indication of consensus. In fact, more or less the entirety of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a self-referential statement of some people's opinion but not others. Personally, what I see as most disruptive in close cases where the outcome could go either way are people who argue for deletion because the article is unsourced (when it's perfectly verifiable), a recreation of a speedily deleted article (or one deleted on other grounds that no longer apply), "blatant advertising" or a "directory" when the article is describing notable features or economic impacts of its subject matter, or does not assert its own notability despite having sources that show it is notable - all misunderstandings of the deletion process. Other people have their own pet peeves. Should we block people who repeatedly make those arguments too? I don't see any way to have deletion discussions other than to allow people to comment freely. Frequently taking one side is perfectly fine if done intelligently. Gaining an advantage by kicking the legs out of the chair on one side of the debate isn't really productive. And I don't see any way to discipline people for simply being clueless, not without biting novice editors who ought to be educated and encouraged rather than chased away from helping the project. Wikidemo (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If the rules are on the books, there is a deterrent effect to those who are warned. Newbies obviously will be told, and then will understand how AFD is supposed to work, but there are several people who continue to do so and totally disregard what others have been saying about non-productive statements. Here is how AFD is ideally supposed to work; A nominator who has checked out an articles notability nominates an article for deletion; a person who wants the article kept then either A) tries to find substantial notability material to justify keeping the article, or enough to go for a merge instead of deletion, posts a link directly to that material or adds it to the articles, and then everyone agrees the article is notable and should be kept, or B)keep voters research it themselves, uncover nothing notable, and also do not have any promising leads as to where notability can be found, and all agree the article is not notable and should be deleted. Either way, there is consensus, and notability is either clear or not. To have long time users post google searches as proof of notability instead of finding actual notable sources and references eats up time and effort that could actually save the article, and help come to a consensus. Instead, huge efforts must be made to explain why the google searches show nothing and are inappropriate, and those responsible simply continue to do it anyway. This causes the whole process, which should be about coming to a consensus on notability, to be disrupted. Some even argue against wikipedia policies or say we should ignore them in these debates! It is abundantly clear what "bad arguments" are; random internet searches are disruptive, and so is arguing to ignore or arguing against Wikipedia policies, which happens surprisingly often. I strongly believe this needs to be spelled out in AFD policy, as these bad arguments are eating up massive amounts of time having to explain wikipedia policy who refuse to listen or change their behavior. This is not about deletionism or inclusionism or anything like that, this is simply about a systemic disruption of the process of AFD that is occuring, and I am imploring those at AFD to take this seriously, as it threatens to corrupt the process. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Having rules on the books doesn't mean that we start banning and blocking everyone who violates those rules. That's what assume good faith is for: assume it's just an honest, well-intentioned mistake. The problem is when someone abuses that good faith assumption and makes the same mistakes repeatedly. Not that I can't point to a specific instance where this has happened. (Perhaps Judgesurreal777 has more examples than I do.) Having rules on the books goes a long way to fixing these mistakes, and improving the quality of discussion at AFD. Let alone eliminating bad or disruptive discussion. This isn't about inclusionism or deletionism: someone who repeatedly advances "I hate it" or "I like it" should be treated equally. Randomran (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So, what are our thoughts on what the wording could be for discouraging people from doing this, and what would be the recommended recourse if they repeatedly failed to abide by it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose this wording: "AFDs are a place for rational discussion. Reasonable editors may disagree about how to interpret our policies. An editor who relies upon proof by assertion for keep or delete !votes may only need a gentle reminder about our policies, and how every article needs to meet this criteria. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts to correct it, please consider a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD." We add an instruction, without being overly harsh or bureaucratic. We're really just writing down common sense so that we can point editors who lack common sense in the right direction. (It probably needs a copy-edit for clarity, but that's the essence of the idea.) Randomran (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) sounds reasonable to me. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, that way I can point to AFD protocol and tell them that we have made it clear that their continual use of proof by assertion is no longer acceptable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We might want to generalize it a little. The problem isn't just proof by assertion. The problem is also when they repeatedly make up their own policies or ignore policies. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, definitely include something about how it is not ok to make AFD into a forum to argue against policies or to argue to ignore them, or sighting essays as trumping policies...Hmm... how to word that one... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We want to leave room for reasonable differences in interpretation... we also want to leave room for honest mistakes. We just want to make sure that someone can't repeatedly make assertions that have no grounding in policy or evidence, or make assertions that ignore the policy and evidence raised by others. I'm not sure how to phrase it. But if you wanted to take another kick at the can, maybe we can work it out. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another way of putting it... the most important word in an AFD should be the word "because" (or "since" or "as" or "due to"). Someone shouldn't be able to repeatedly make assertions without trying to back them up somehow, or ignore other peoples' "because" arguments in criticizing their position. Randomran (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

the flipside

Editor conduct is one aspect of AfD I would like to see changed, but I think a bigger issue is that of closing. Sadly, many don't understand that rough consensus doesn't mean "If twenty guys say keep, but the lone delete argument still holds water and is not refuted, the article can be deleted, as what matters is strength of arguments for keep or otherwise. This is partly the reason I scrutinize non-admin closures, but it seems many of our admins are also unwilling to step up to the plate on this issue as well, even when the relevant info is so close at hand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is sometimes subjective. Another issue is the case of "about as many people are on one side of the room shouting as the other, but one of the two sides has a point based in policy". Also, consensus judging allows for dismissal of holdouts, so long as they aren't the only ones with a clue (the scenario you described). In my opinion there already is a relief in place for poor closures--DRV is right there. There exists no real relief for tendentious misuse of process (As described above). Protonk (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I share David's concerns, and I think that having something explaining that the pointless arguments are not allowed will help cut down on fillibustered AFD's and intimidated closers who don't want to make a horde of keep voters angry. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this, another rough draft;

AFDs are a place for rational discussion. Reasonable editors may disagree about how to interpret our policies. An editor who relies upon proof by assertion, or holds that essays or personal opinion trump Wikipedia policies to justify voting keep or delete may only need a gentle reminder about our policies, and how every article needs to meet wikipedia's article criteria. There are appropriate places to discuss, criticize, and propose changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but AFD is not one of them. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts to correct it through dialogue, please consider a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD. Closers of AFD discussions are strongly encouraged to remember that AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and that it is the quality of the arguments made, based on Wikipedia policies, that should guide decision making. Thoughts? improvements? Step right up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do without the "...hold that essays or personal opinion to trump Wikipedia policies" bit. I know where it is coming from but policies are meant to describe consensus and not dictate it. I know what you are trying to say though, we don't want someone continually linking WP:CRUFT as though it demands compliance. But I'm not sure how to ward against that without pushing too far. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You yourself have seen how AFD has degenerated into open criticism of wikipedia policies, which is fine, but totally the wrong forum for that kind of thing. And because the Fiction notability guideline, or whatever it was, has collapsed, people this the main notability and verifiability pages are ignorable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it a little, how would you phrase the part you disliked? I think we should say something about that aspect, as it is currently one of the main problems. AFDs are a place for rational discussion. Reasonable editors may disagree about how to interpret our policies. An editor who relies upon proof by assertion, or holds that essays or personal opinion trump Wikipedia policies to justify voting keep or delete may only need a gentle reminder about our policies, and how every article needs to meet wikipedia's article criteria. There are appropriate places to discuss, criticize, and propose changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but AFD is not one of them. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts are made to correct it through dialogue, please consider a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD. Closers of AFD discussions are strongly encouraged to remember that AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and that it is the quality of the arguments made, based on Wikipedia policies, that should guide decision making. It's short, sweet, not mean, encourages dialogue, is specific. Totally open to change though, so thoughts? Improvements? I would really love to get a consensus on this so we can improve the quality of AFD. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems find to me, perhaps "An editor who relies upon proof by assertion, or holds that essays or personal opinion carry more consensus within the community than Wikipedia policies..." And I know where you are coming from with regard to AfD's that are stalled or used as battlegrounds over notability. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it and I feel it should be on the main page of this project as soon as possible. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very close to being solid. But I think we can do without the essays part. I think there's a constructive way to use essays, especially since many of them complement or tie together policy, or explain how to apply a policy. Can you give an example of the kind of disruption we want to deal with? Because I wouldn't want to start cracking down on everyone who uses an essay in AFD. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the second part from Judge's first proposal (beginning with AFD is not an appropriate location to argue against specific Wikipedia policies...) was spot-on doesn't need the long introduction. Either someone uses AfD to battle policies and needs to be called on it, or he doesn't, in which case AfD already works fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

... I also have an additional concern: when editors actively respond to or criticize other editor's !votes, but without evidence, logic or policy. For example, someone offers a good !vote such as "Keep: I agree with Protonk that this article has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant inclusion," and someone responds with "This isn't a vote, so stop just agreeing with other editors." I know this kind of disruption seems strange, but I've seen this kind of thing happen. Basically, someone tries to discredit someone else's !vote without actually responding to the substance of their !vote. It's the same basic concern: when someone refuses to engage in rational logical two-way discussion, and instead insists on talking passed them or making forceful assertions with no basis. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree about axing the essays part, while it annoys the bugger out of me when people seem to think an essay trumps all and it leads into sniping and biting on both sides, that's more an issue with a total misunderstanding of what an essay actually is (you would think the {{essay}} tag would have solved that, but no...) More importantly, however, I think it's the de facto issues that need to be dealt with, such as inexperienced admins yielding to the wrong perception of consensus. What's written down will only take us so far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I cracked the code guys! Try this one out...AFDs are a place for rational discussion. It is not a vote, where a majority determines an articles fate, but a discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article criteria and policies. Reasonable editors may disagree about how to interpret our policies. An editor who relies upon proof by assertion, or argues with essays or personal opinions that directly contradict Wikipedia policy to justify voting keep or delete may only need a gentle reminder about our policies, and how every article needs to meet Wikipedia's article criteria. There are appropriate places to discuss, criticize, and propose changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but AFD is not one of them. Editors are also encouraged not to disrupt AFD discussions by simply contradicting someone they disagree with, but to engage them in dialogue on their concerns. Editors wishing to help retain articles at AFD should post direct links to resources that help further their case, and not direct others to search engine results, as this is not a demonstration of reliable sourcing or notability, and is therefore not productive. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts are made correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD. Closers of AFD discussions are also strongly encouraged to remember that it is the quality of the arguments made, not the number, that should guide decision making, and decisions should be rooted in policy, and not just an approval of a majority vote. This incorporates everything that you guys suggested, and I tried to make it positive, and "Encouraging" , not proscriptive. I think this could be the one. Comments, thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this line of thought is misguided. AfD's are a place to discuss the merits of policies, guidelines, essays, and logical arguments.

• First, even if Wikipedia's rules were set in stone (which they obviously are not), and utterly precise, unambiguous, and without tension or contradiction, you still could not apply them in a mechanical way. No rule system can be applied without giving due attention to the meanings, purposes, or merits of the rules - why they are there, how important they are, how important they are to follow or ignore depending on the circumstance. If you look at any fair deliberative body - judges in a courtroom, philosophers, scientists discussing a theory, editors in a newsroom - the most thoughtful of these bodies do not shy away from discussions of what the rules mean and whether they are good rules. In fact, the discussions are all about the rules, not the particulars.
• Second, when multiple people are sharing the exercise of rule-making, it is often difficult to reach any kind of consensus about what rules mean without healthy discussion. People never learn about rules and what they mean without testing them, discussing them with one another. People learn by practice.
• Third, rules evolve over time and in Wikipedia's case are descriptive, not prescriptive. Policies and guidelines describe what happens out in the real editing world of Wikipedia, not vice-versa. They are not imposed by edict from the policy pages on the rest of Wikipedia. AfD cases are one of the primary places where the rules are made and tested. "Notability is not inherited" for example is an essay, not a guideline - yet it is a very strongly followed essay. WP:NOT#NEWS is a very important policy, but it does not apply uniformly. There are unstated exceptions. How important are these when there are competing concerns? We are not going to learn that from reading the discussion pages of the essay. That is going to emerge over the course of deletion debates. The only fundamental rule about notability is that we have articles about things that are worth noting. Everything else is interpretation.
• Finally, I'm concerned that the premise of this discussion reflects a deep misunderstanding of AfD debates and discussion guidelines. It's absolutely not true that arguments for or against something have to have a solid basis in policy, and certainly not true that a talk page claim that something is notable needs to have a reliable source. The notion that everything one says on the talk page must be sourced (or fit other main page content policies) is a bit of an anathema. If someone were to nominate Shift key for deletion - a completely unreferenced article I might add - then I could say "come on, everybody has one, there must be a hundred million of them in the world" or "wikipedia has articles about functional components of nearly every major user interface; to delete this one would leave a jarring hole in our coverage of keyboard devices", utterly without sourcing. And if I do source I can source to a blog, a wiki, a youtube video, google hits, anything I want.
• Deletion discussions are free-form reasoning. To try to tell people what they may or may not say is just wrong. The issue isn't the type of argument people make, but whether they are making arguments disruptively, in bad faith, and so on.

For these reasons, and some others I probably haven't mentioned, I think it's wrong to use behavioral guidelines to do an end run around the meta-issue of how things get decided around here. Some people have a pet peeve that uninformed people lobby the deletion discussions with seemingly mindless keep votes. I have a pet peeve that people lobby the AfDs with mindless application of rules that don't mean what they think they mean. I could just as easily propose an addition that people who simply state a rule name and vote to delete (or keep) without analyzing what the rule means and whether deletion would be in the spirit of the rule should be silenced - in favor of debate by reason instead of debate by rule citation. But for consensus to work we can't stack the decks to our liking. Wikidemo (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you need the condensed version, I strongly oppose this proposal both in its aims and current wording. All instruction creep is bad, but limiting the scope or manner of good faith discussion is insidious to the system. On the specifics (prohibiting search engine results) I flatly disagree with the reasoning. Pointing to a google search result is perfectly valid in many cases, and often quite relevant to the discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong in all your reasoning, and totally miss the point of AFD, which is intelligent discussion of wikipedia policies, not of stuff people make up like essays that say ignore policy. Further, utilizing google searches is a pure waste of time, and shows a lack of effort by those who would argue keep. AFD is in serious meltdown because of people doing the things that this guideline will gently point out should not be done as they are unproductive. There needs to be an understanding of what proper AFD behavior is, just like there is with Featured Article Candidacy, where it is not ok to have inactionable objections, so there is ample precedent for a guideline on behavior. And let me be very clear; I and many other wikipedians will not stand idly by while the same people who have derailed AFD come here, and use the same inane arguments to ignore policy and commonsense in the AFD process, and try to derail one of the most important AFD reforms in a long time. This didn't come out of nowhere, this is a broadly supported idea made by people, especially me, with a lot of experience with AFD and its strengths and weaknesses. This last opinion discounted, I believe we are at consensus on this reform, and should, with a slight copyedit, proceed and add it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of disruption? You can take that to AN/I if you want but given the topic at hand I suggest that you respect the consensus process and other discussion principles and let me have my say. Please do not take it so hard when people disagree and don't threaten to change process policies against consensus. You might consider taking a step back from this issue. You're not going to build consensus that way. Wikidemo (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of this proposal isn't to limit the scope or manner of discussion, but to offer a tangible way to promote more rational, logical, civil, two-way discussion. Nobody is going to get in trouble for a few blanket assertions, but it would be helpful if someone who does so can be directed to our policy to show how to improve discussion. This is to prevent AFDs where someone plugs their ears, covers their eyes, and says over and over "no, no, no, no, no" to everything everyone else says. It's to redirect their efforts to more productive forms of disagreement, which benefits everyone. Randomran (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If so, it can be summed up quite nicely - don't be disruptive in AfD discussions. Which I think is already reflected in our behavior policies and guidelines. I believe I've summed up a number of salient points why that's preferable than telling people how they may argue. The hands over the ears comment is a real issue, though. If you can come up with a cure for arguing without thinking on Wikipedia you'll be the recipient of many barnstars. Wikidemo (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're trying to achieve. I know the wording is less than ideal, but that's something I hope that you'll collaborate on rather than obstruct. "Don't disrupt wikipedia" is vague, but admittedly this new proposal might be too specific or harsh. I don't even necessarily have a problem with people who make completely subjective !votes, because these are often ignored by the larger wikipedia population and can be chalked up to good faith mistakes. The problem is when they do it over and over, let alone in the same AFD. The goal isn't to get them in trouble or block them, but to be able to point to a specific policy that shows them "do this instead of that". Do you think you'd be able to sum up some of the salient points into a short policy that's more specific than "don't be disruptive"? I'd like to work this out together, if you could admit that it's possible for policy to have even a small impact on behavior. Randomran (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a shot. But it may take a bit, and I'm not sure it's possible. It may just turn out that an essay is the only good framework to voice this sentiment. Perhaps it's not coincidence that deletion and notability are unusual among the Wikipedia policy spaces for having a number of essays that are so highly respected that people rely on them as they would a guideline - you know, like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Speaking of which, my main hangup is that it's totally okay to be wrong or opinionated on Wikipedia, just not to be stubbornly persistent in it. But one person's wrong vote is another person's right vote. So how to distinguish between someone who peppers dozens of AfD discussions with a terse, unexplained "Delete per nom. WP:NOT#NEWS" from an equally terse, unexplained "Keep. Every other Pokemon card has an article." Maybe an admonition against tilting at windmills? If you state an idiosyncratic opinion once or twice that's okay, but if you find yourself perpetually on the losing side of deletion discussions and people point out that your vote does not align with policy and guidelines, and accepted thinking about how they apply, you should accept that you are actually advocating for a change in policy, and individual AfD votes are an unlikely and possibly disruptive place to advocate for sweeping changes to policy. Wikidemo (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's wise. Disruption is the problem but I think that we need to put a point on it. Otherwise we can show editors "Hey guys, disruption is a problem" and we will get "Nuh-uh, I wasn't being disruptive(insert their personal definition of disruption here)". Here we are trying to say that repeated dishonest and pointed actions carry a price for the community in lost time and a price for the individual in lost reputation among people who are just trying to get stuff done. I don't want this change to be a blanket ban on actions or essay linking. I want it to be a recognition that the community already disapproves of tendentious editing. Mercilessly pushing a point in process discussions should be treated similarly to pushing a POV in articlespace. We don't tolerate it there (which is distinct from saying we don't tolerate the POV itself) because it disrupts the encyclopedia). We shouldn't tolerate it at AfD for the same reason. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Being on the wrong side of AFDs is definitely a warning sign that you need to make changes, but I don't think that's the real issue. Someone can be wrong over and over, so long as they have a reason that explains how the article meets our policies. The problem is when they don't have a reason and just resort to keep/delete, let alone "this does/doesn't meet our policy" with no explanation how. More specifically, the problem is when they don't have a reason, someone asks them to provide a reason, and they repeatedly respond without giving one. (A common tactic is to dodge: "well I don't see why I need a reason. you should prove that I'm wrong.") I don't think we can come up with a policy so rigorous that it just stops people from making bad arguments. But I think we *can* come up with a policy that will let someone point out a bad argument and say "can you offer a little more justification?", and hold someone accountable if they stubbornly dodge that request. (And just as much, hold someone accountable when they challenge a good argument with BS.) Randomran (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to come up with a phrasing that is more general, and does not focus on any specific keep or delete argument. I tried to err on less instruction, and leaving room for interpretation. The issue is *not* anyone's Wikipedia philosophy, or someone who is wrong or sloppy now and then. Again, the issue is someone who plugs their ears and says "no, no, no, no" over and over:

• AFDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article criteria and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may need only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring actual guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AFD.

I think this is fair. Maybe it won't end all bad arguments in AFD, but at least it will give us a way to address stubborn editors who show an unwillingness to improve. Randomran (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think so too...the valid arguments having more weight covers advice to closers, and it is a very succinct summary of my longer version. It satisfies the concerns of those who said it shouldn't mention essays, and is not too general or too specific, it's a nice mixture. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this really an AfD issue?

After having read the above - and agreeing with a large portion of it - I can't help but wonder if this is really an AfD issue that warrants any kind of change to related policies. Bad arguments are bad arguments, whether they are made at XfD, DRV, RfA or pretty much anywhere discussions take place. To me, this looks more like an issue of editor conduct rather than one that should be approached from the angle of "Let's fix AfD". Administrators who are closing debates will, on the whole, recognize this kind of behavior and factor that appropriately into the closing decision; I don't really see any reason we should be attempting to make specific prohibitions in terms of what kind of arguments an editor may or may not make. If one editor's actions are trending toward disruption there are ways to deal with it, but again, that's an issue of editor conduct and not a fundamental problem/issue with the deletion process. In my opinion this is looking more like a solution in search of a problem, than anything else. Shereth 18:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question. I think the problem is that most issues aren't acute and they aren't obivous. Let's say we have editor X, who votes to delete everything related to Hello Kitty Island Adventure. He does so by misrepresenting sources, badgering keep votes and generally forcing each process out to the maximum extent possible. but he doesn't insult people or do things like nominate the main page for deletion. It isn't a matter for WP:ANI because it isn't an "incident". WP:RFC and WP:AN will treat discussions about the matter--which are likely to ONLY be raised by keep voters--as a content or notability issue, and dismiss the claims. Even if an RFC is filed and moved past the threshold people will chime into the general discussion using the issue as a proxy to discuss inclusion/exclusion. In the end Editor X gets put through a month long (or more) process, everyone gets more riled up about differences of opinion and nothing results from the complaints. Everyone loses. We need to set some expected standard of editor conduct so we can discuss this rationally if and when problems occur. It doesn't help to say "Editor X is disrupting AfD by voting to delete Hello Kitty Island Adventure". It helps to say that "we have a shared expectation that editors behave in a certain manner to keep AfD workable and civil and editor X violated those expectation here, here and here". that way it doesn't invite the immediate rejoinder "But I think that we SHOULD delete Hello Kitty Island Adventure, because of A, B, C". treating this as a conduct issue here will only push it off to a forum which will there treat it as a content dispute. This is a solution to that problem. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If the worst you can say is "this is a problem with editor conduct", then I agree. That shouldn't stop us from trying to codify the kinds of conduct that are frowned upon. Most administrators will see through bad arguments, and most editors will attempt to explain their argument when pressed for evidence and logic. But let's write down what we've all known for a long time: that someone who repeatedly advances non-arguments in AFDs, let alone multiple times in the same AFD, is being disruptive. The best way for them to not be disruptive is to respond by justifying their reasoning, or not respond at all. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically the point I am getting at is that this transcends AfD discussions and should be treated on a broader scale of identifying editor behavior that is disruptive while not necessarily falling under the scope of civility, vandalism or the like. The closest existing policy to what's being discussed here is WP:POINT, as it could well be argued that someone who continues making ill-considered arguments in spite of having been warned is disruptively editing to make their point. See the subsection WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If anything, I believe that should be the target of this discussion, not an alteration to deletion process/procedure. Shereth 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the effort to target the problem everywhere, I think we have to settle for small, incremental progress. Targetting this problem on AFDs would be a huge milestone. Also, AFDs are a magnet for this kind of argument, since people often come here to vote rather than discuss. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Randomran (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also, it isn't strictly WP:POINT (a VERY narrow policy) because point assumes intent, a specific intent that is rarely seen. We are trying to cap disruption for the sake of argumentation, not disruption for the sake of disruption (but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT does apply). Protonk (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't have any specific issues with modifying the language of the deletion process or its associated templates to try and nip the problem in the bud - I just don't think it will work. It comes across as making up "clubhouse rules" on what you can and cannot say in a particular forum and that just doesn't make sense - user conduct issues should be treated globally, not locally. In the end, it's just going to be a paragraph with no teeth that few editors are ever likely to pay heed to - assuming they ever get around to reading it. Using a more concise guideline/policy covering user behavior is far more likely to hold water when admonishing disruptive users or when escalating the problem upward, should the need arise. Protonk above argues that, as things are now, there is little recourse for dealing with "problematic" editors. I present the question : in an ANI/RFC/whatever dealing with a "disruptive" editor, which is more likely to be treated seriously: violating a paragraph in the "AfD Wikietiquette" section (which is neither policy nor guideline) or repeated violation of a specific user behavior guideline? Shereth 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion is a policy. Protonk (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that Shereth agrees that the language should be changed, and I agree that wikipedian behavior as a whole should at some point be addressed. But I totally disagree with you that it will be just a paragraph without teeth; the paragraph I have written is robust, clear, and commonsense. As of now, there is no real recourse to stopping problem editors because there has been zero guidance on the issue of behavior by the AFD page itself. With no guidance, most wikipedians and closers have no idea what is expected of them to have a productive discussion, and this simply sets parameters for that discussion. And when problem editors violate these guidelines, which will be part of AFD so should carry weight, we can point to our commonsense requests for civility and dialogue, and a genuine productive conversation, and they will be held accountable. Newbies and others who are unfamiliar will be enriched when we point out to them the proper way to conduct AFD, and thus they will not be "bitten" or driven away. This policy is very specific to AFD because AFD desperately needs this to continue functioning and not simply become an angry battleground for those who dislike wikipedia policies, or an inclusionism/deletionism war. I believe that this should be added, and unless Wikidemo has a suggestion as to how to improve it, it has a lot of support, little opposition, and should be added to the AFD page. It is time to be bold, implement policies we know to be greatly needed, and thus greatly improve this process. Let's do this now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I have no issues with altering the language and thus won't oppose any changes here - it's just that I think going at it this route amounts to tilting at windmills and won't really accomplish the desired end-result. The problem is wider than AfD - and indeed has recently come up as an issue on DRV as well (related to, I suspect, some of the goings-on that have sparked this debate to begin with). It should be treated as such. Nevertheless, I wish you all luck in your goals and hope I am incorrect in my assessment that this method will see little end result. Shereth 20:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your comments, and let us know if this becomes a wider discussion at some point, I, and most likely others, would love to participate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentence/links about notability

Shouldn't the sentence "Also, Wikipedia:Non-notability and this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy regarding notability may be useful." at the end of the How to discuss an AfD-section be removed? One link leads to a failed proposal and the other one leads to a discussion which is outdated (not being notable is actually a reason for deletion, as per Wikipedia:Deletion Policy). How is that useful? It is confusing at best. Adrianwn (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody objects, I'll go ahead and be bold. But just in case, here is the removed part:

Also, [[Wikipedia:Non-notability]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive December 2004 to August 2005#Notability_not_a_criterion_for_deletion.3F|this]] discussion on the talk page of [[Wikipedia:Deletion Policy]] regarding notability may be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianwn (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

CONFUSING!

Wow these instructions are like a freaking riddle. And they go on forever. Shutting down HAL was easier than getting this stupid page deleted. noit (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can install TWINKLE it gets a lot easier - you just click on a tab, type your reasoning, select a category and it does the rest for you. Hut 8.5 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very inclusive system if I have to install a bunch of stuff to delete a page. I remember nominating pages for deletion years ago and it wasn't this convoluted. I just tried to get two pages deleted and I have no idea if it worked or what I did. For the first one, I tried to go through these steps and surely munged it up. For the second one I gave up and just slapped a "Speedy Delete" sticker on there and hope someone will sort it out. noit (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, a little procedural hurdle to delete pages is a good thing. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No more of a hurdle is needed than the fact that I'm not allowed to delete pages.noit (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to install anything to nominate an article for deletion, you just have to follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. If you find a step confusing, ask a question here or put a {{helpme}} tag on your talk page with the question. TWINKLE merely automates the process, so it's a matter of a couple of mouse clicks instead of copy/pasting several templates.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find all of the steps confusing. Especially the steps that send me to another page with more steps outlined on it. noit (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Substitute {{afd1}} on the target page. follow the red link you created. Insert {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ on the new page. Record the new AfD page on the log with {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}. that seems short to me. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be stupider about these things, so much so that I now usually wait until someone else nominates it, having failed t o complete the nomination half the times I've tried We should not be relying on tools like twinkle for our basic fuctionality. If it is indeed so simple, build a procedure to do it as part of the basic function. Let one template be filled out in one place, that will transfer the information automatically. If nobody can program this, perhaps it isn't quite so simple. DGG (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty is that there are three pages that need to be edited: the article page, the nomination/discussion page, and the daily list.

It would be possible to do the following: the user fills out a new AFD-simple template and leaves it on the article page. A bot comes through and replaces the AFD-simple template with a regular AFD template; copies the reasoning to a new discussion page; and add that discussion page to the daily log. It would still be possible to follow the4 current procedure, using the current templates; AFD-simple is just a special request for a bot to come through to help. That bot would not be exceptionally hard to code. Thoughts? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be an elegant solution.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty simple to implement, too. Shereth 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good solution. Note that dumbbot (talk · contribs) already does very nearly this, it would just need to transfer the nomination from the afd-simple template to the afd2 page, if you understand what I mean. This is really something that could be done as soon as someone commits to running the bot - there's no new process needed, it just simplifies what is already done. --Rividian (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Old AFD

Did I do something wrong? An AFD i proposed (here) on the 31st of August has not been closed. I must of stuffed up the proposal somehow... Not that I mind -- I would like the other editors to confirm their comments in light of subsequent discussion. User A1 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - you didn't follow step 3 of the instructions and add the AFD to the daily listing. I will do it now. Hut 8.5 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading sentence in intro

I was looking for a step-by-step guide to AFD. When I read "The guide to deletion explains the deletion process." I followed the link expecting to find an How-to and got lost instead. It got me some more clicks to find out the info I needed was actually on this page. I think the quoted sentence is misleading for newcomers and should be changed into something more newbie-friendly. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new day

I looked around a bit for how to add a new day and did not find anything obvious. In particular, I was looking for whether there was a template that could be substituted to create the standardized header for a new day. Could someone illuminate the 'adding a new day' process and suggest where the information might be placed (what page) if it is not already codified somewhere? Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:LDBot should be doing it, but if that isn't happening I've got some code stored at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox#AfD log page creation text for tomorrow that can be used instead (open up the edit window to get it, the <nowiki> tags remove linebreaks). Feel free to build a template out of it, or something. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What to do when relisting

Please educate me about relisting. In a recent day log, I notice that some editors doing relists are just inserting a comment *after* the relisted transclusion, without actually removing it from the old file, like

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dedative case}}<!--Relisted-->

Reading WP:RELIST, it suggests that the relisted AfD should be *removed* from the old day log. The above comment in the hidden text looks like it won't do anything, and it ought to make the relisted AfD still show up as needing action under the old day. Is this desirable, or does a bot somehow recognize this? EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what's preferred (I'd love to find out, though), but the way I've been doing it is

<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dedative case}} -->

That keeps the discussion from showing up on the old day's listing, but the information is still easily seen in case someone needs it for some reason.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Unwieldy

I am so frustrated at the unwieldiness of this procedure. I'm a member of the wikification wikiproject (sometimes it feels like I'm the member of the project; the backlog does nothing but grow). A huge number of the articles tagged for wikification should just be deleted. I've tagged a load of them for notability. Usually there is no reply. Can't a system be devised so that they go straight from there to AfD? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule saying you need to tag for notability before AfD'ing articles, it's just usually good form. Feel free to nominate the lot of them whenever you like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but per the discussion above, it is unwieldy to add 3 separate templates in 3 separate places. With, in one place, a long edit summary required. By contrast, when an article is already tagged as having multiple issues, it is simple to add "notability" to those. However, thanks for your suggesion, and I may go straight to AfD more frequently in future. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there semi-automated tools like AWB which have AfD functionality built in? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked into PROD? It's only a single step. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Very useful suggestion and I might well be using it more often. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And if someone wanted to check out whether I prodded Ben Hayle appropriately and properly, I'd be grateful. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the prod is fine. I'll second Tikiwont's recommendation of Twinkle, especially if you are wikifying. It will make speedy, prod, and AfD one step processes (including notifying the article's creator). Add Friendly to the mix and you've got a lot of templates at your fingertips mouse tip. (And don't feel too alone there at the wikify project. Over at WP:DEP we're doing a lot of wikifying as well. Keep up the good work!)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle facilitates applying deletion tags for all three deletion processes. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Additions to log

Should I add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man 9 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 24? If I do, that will imply that the Mega Man 9 discussion was properly listed at the time of the discussion, which it wasn't. If I don't add it, then it will not be archived log. Thoughts? -- Suntag ☼ 14:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If it didn't get listed in the first place, go ahead. No one'll complain if you do. Logs aren't that important after everything's closed, so it won't hurt anything if you don't, either. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Lifebaka said. I've added orphaned discussions to the current day's log before along with a note in the discussion saying what I did, and no one threw a hissy fit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Duh, misunderstood the question. Never mind.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 00:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dearly Departed

I came to wikipedia to look up information about the comedy play Dearly Departed, and found a no-name, non-notable band instead. Seeing that the article has been marked for deletion for nearly a year, I thought I'd point this out to someone. While I'm not advocating putting the play in its place (though the show is quite popular among the "Tuna Christmas" fanbase), I did want to be helpful. Thank you. 67.151.72.162 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dearly departed is not actually marked for deletion, it's got a notability tag on it. As for the play, feel free to create an account and then the article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stagnant deletion debates?

If an AFD remains stagnant because not a lot of users visit it (like Wolgot's AFD, for example,) then how would one bring attention to the AFD? Where could they post the link to the AFD so others visit the page? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 09:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it keeps getting relisted without gathering significant comment, then it's either a delete close as the deletion is apparently uncontroversial (since no one could be bothered to comment on the AfD) or it's no consensus because there isn't any consensus about what to do with it (and relisting doesn't appear to be doing anything to generate consensus). Really, it's the call of whoever goes to close it what should be done with it, though relisting is highly favored at least once. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's stagnant or not, deletion sorting is always a good way to let interested parties know about the debate. This AfD was posted to the list of Korea related debates on September 13, so anyone particularly interested in Korea topics should be aware of it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

removal of "contradictory", "confusing", and "delete and merge, which can't be done..."

• "contradictory". It's unnecessary to have a policy stating that !voters should not be contradictory. It's pretty obvious.
• "confusing". We shouldn't have a policy encouraging !voters to treat an afd discussion as a vote instead of a discussion. Telling editors to keep everything simple conflicts with what an afd discussion was meant to be. If administrators like to have their afd's served on a silver platter let them stick to the WP:SNOW afd's, or if they would really like to simplify things let them stick to blocking vandals. Nobody is forcing anyone to become an admin and close afd's. Besides, there are plenty of admins that relish the challenge of coming to a resolution to a complicated afd discussion.
• "delete and merge, which can't be done..." Wikipedia:Merge and delete is an essay, and should not be treated as policy until it becomes one. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is fair. I think what some people mean by delete and merge is to get rid of the article on the whole, but keep some of its contents to the extent that it's appropriate for a completely different article. Otherwise, I think we should assume that people aren't going to be deliberately confusing or contradictory. Randomran (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this removal. I had occasion to explain this issue of merge and delete at length in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (6th nomination) recently - it seemed apparent that other editors did not understand the problem. It is not the first time I have seen this confusion at AFD and so it is useful to retain this detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• That exactly is my point, it is treated like it is policy and it must be abided by, while it's just an essay like Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose. I have seen editors being brow-beaten (as in the link you provided) for proposing merge/delete, while there is no policy prohibiting this solution. If you think that GDFL requires such a policy, then make it policy. But until it is made official policy, we can't tell editors that merge/delete votes are "illegal". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the GFDL is official policy. This was impressed upon me by an admin when I was merging some material a while ago. Moreover, since the GFDL is a legal agreement, it seems that it is not open to us to amend related material as we please. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• ....and this misconception is shared by others as well. But Wikipedia:Merge and delete is an essay. Whether it should be policy or shouldn't be policy is (to quote) way above my pay grade. But until it gets christened WP policy it should not be treated as such. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neither WP:AFD, WP:MERGE nor WP:GFDL are marked as policy but that does not mean that they have no force. I'd not seen Wikipedia:Merge and delete before but it just seems to be an elaboration of these other pages. It is not required to support this detail in WP:AFD which should stay regardless. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• They're not policy because they are just describing what they are. They describe how an afd works, how a merge works, and what the GFDL is. To the extent that they are making rules, they have no force. Thus, WP:AFD, which describes the afd procedure, should not pronounce afd-discussion rules unless they are agreed upon or make sense. The "uncontradictory" and "unconfusing" requirements don't make sense and the rule against merge/delete was never accepted. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove this section. We don't "delete and merge" but adding the element to the list adds no value and gives weight to what I feel is a meaningless argument. Randomran is right. Most people aren't familiar with the license and so when they say "delete and merge" they mean something like "delete and redirect" or "merge some but not most". Votes like that are commonly responded to with "Well we can't delete and merge so we should keep". Is see no reason to codify that response in the instructions. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. To restate it succinctly, this is a legitimate editing choice: to delete an article, but keep some of the content for another article. The argument should be given weight on its merits, rather than discounting it or reinterpreting it because of some essay. Randomran (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I could really care less what text is and is not on WP:AFD, but randomly bashing essays doesn't cut it here more than anything else. There are legitimate, legal reasons why delete and merge !votes should be reinterpreted as either delete or merge (if they don't get amended, and depending on the situation), and these reasons are laid down in the essay. If you disagree with the essay so much, take it up at WT:MAD, not here. lifebaka++ 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not essay bashing. It's just trying to avoid giving undue weight to essays, turning them into policy without real discussion or consensus. MAD is a legit argument, but then there's also a legit counter-argument. We shouldn't take sides on the WP:AFD page. Randomran (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Interestingly enough, the "randomly bashing essays" link is itself an essay. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have no preference whether "merge & delete" is listed or not. However, we are bound by the GFDL and every editor agrees to abide by it with each edit. To claim that the GFDL "has no force" because it's not marked as policy is incorrect. That said, there are alternate ways, when appropriate, to maintain an article's history instead of using a redirect. The history can be moved or copied before the original title is deleted. Therefore, "merge & delete" can be implemented (in a sense) when needed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, Wikipedia:Copyrights is official policy. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• We aren't arguing that the GFDL has no force. We are arguing that there is no reason to automatically discount a vote made by someone who says something like "merge and delete". Obviously we don't expect the closing admin to take this advice. Further, even if we wished to discount votes like that, there isn't a consensus to leave an admonition about them on the WP:AFD page. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether they are meant literally or not, there are a couple of comments above that state it doesn't have force. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In case you're referring to something that I said, let me explain: Wikipedia:Copyrights and GDFL are of course official policy. However, it has never been accepted as policy or as even a valid argument that the GFDL copyright does not allow for merge/delete votes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • GFDL is more than policy; it's a copyright license. GFDL requires that attribution history be maintained. I agree that there are other ways to maintain that history than simply redirecting (though that is often the easiest). -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, on a very basic level the GFDL requires that attribution history be maintained. That does not mean that every single thing here on Wikipedia must have its attributive history. There are plenty of things that are deleted then recreated by others and copy and pastes from one article to another. The GDFL is licensing agreement that was not written specifically for Wikipedia, and therefore, applying it to WP is far more complex and unclear for a regular person like me and others. Thus, unclear rules that are based on GDFL require clear acceptance from the Wikipedia community. This "rule" that merge/delete is illegal and violates GDFL is far from clear and has yet to be accpted as true. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but this might go places faster over at WT:MAD rather than here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let the lawyers and quasi-lawyers deal with it there, and when they finally decide on a policy, the policy should be added here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, the GFDL is not the best license that could have been picked for Wikipedia, but now we're stuck with it. Saying that "there's plenty of violations so a few more are okay" is not the right approach. There are ways to copy content between articles without violating the GFDL and there are ways to accomplish a "delete & merge" without violating the GFDL. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• My point wasn't that "there's plenty of violations so a few more are okay". My point was not every deletion results in an illegal GDFL violation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) but the operative question for WT:AFD isn't whether or not you can "merge and delete", it is just whether or not to have a specific admonition about that suggestion on the AFD page. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already said I don't object. What I object to is the continued impression being given that the requirements of the GFDL don't matter and we can ignore them when we want. That is a bad impression to leave for other readers. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I don't think I was replying directly to you. Sorry if I gave that impression! I agree that we shouldn't give that impression. I guess that leaves a closer pertinent question, which is, "can we assume anything about the desires of an editor who votes 'merge and delete'"? Should we assume that they mean it literally and need to be brought up to speed on the GFDL restrictions? Should we assume that they mean redirect? Should we assume anything? Protonk (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume anything. The most important part of a person's AFD !vote is the part that's not in bold. Let administrators read that on a case by case basis, rather than reinterpreting it according to what a few editors insist it means. Randomran (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The position that "'merge and delete' is an invalid opinion" has long-standing consensus and was based on very detailed and informed opinions about exactly what GFDL requires us to do. That consensus predates the creation of the essay (which attempts merely to explain the decision in layman's terms) and even predates the decision to chop up our working pages into the arbitrary layers of policy/guideline/essay/etc. Compliance with GFDL is not optional.
Yes, there are alternate ways that you can preserve the attribution history of merged content but they are labor-intensive and error-prone. They are almost never worth the trouble or risk. (They are occasionally worth it when preserving snippets of useful content from a page which otherwise must be deleted for copyright or BLP issues but that's about it.) If someone thinks that the content is worth merging into some other destination, then the burden is on them to articulate why the closer should go to the special effort. If they fail to provide that special justification, then the default position has to be to keep the pagehistory. Anything else is unfair to our closers.
"Merge and delete" is simply a bad recommendation and causes far more trouble than it's worth. Rossami (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS can change, and it looks like it has. Not that I think merge and delete is itself a clear recommendation. But I think administrators should read it and interpret what the editor is arguing to do. Sometimes it means merge and redirect, sometimes it means delete. Randomran (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing consensus for this change. The advice is sound and, in urging editors to make clear recommendations, is helpful to the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)